Dang it...my CRT is crapping out

[janas19]

My 19" Trinitron has a maximum resolution of 1600 x 1200 @ 75Hz.

The 21" Trinitron I mentioned above has a maximum resolution of 2048x1536 @ 80 Hz, and a recommended resolution of 1880 x 1440 @ 85 Hz

Cool.

 

[QueBert]

OP I have found CRT's on CL that had seen almost zero usage for free or next to free. I'll probably never go LCD so when my CRT starts to go out I'm on CL looking. My hope is to one day find a Sony 24" WS CRT that's not $500 bucks. Apparently everyone knows these are very valuable unlike most CRT's Don't listen to anyone on here, going from a good CRT to any LCD suuuucks.

 

[Jeff7]

Gawd, I agree with that. I HATE giving up my Trinitron CRT.

Twas a sad day when my 21" Nokia monitor died - Trinitron tube.

Eventually, I'll probably be able to justify dropping $1k on a big IPS screen. (Or two. )

TN screens flat out suck compared to that Trinitron, specifically in terms of color reproduction, pixel response time, and viewing angle - you know, the very things that you want out of a monitor. :\
Even with an alleged "1ms" TN screen, moving gradients such as a shaded object result in banding - the pixels might be able to transition from on to off in no time flat, but color-to-color isn't so great. And if I adjust the response time down, the banding starts to go away, but then I get streaking in everything.
I'll have to scrutinize my tablet's screen closely to see if I can really justify getting a large IPS. It does have a better viewing angle, at least with respect to maintaining colors. However, the brightness still drops off a lot with off-angle viewing.

 

[thelastjuju]

going from a good CRT to any LCD suuuucks.

Indeed it does..

But most people didn't have the better CRT's.. what sucks most is the bigger tube CRT's, like the Sony 34" that did 1080p and such.. had some serious reliability issues, and many were dead in two years.

There's a huge difference between these two types of CRT's:

So don't confuse your standard as-can-be 90's PC monitor with your higher end, flat screened Sony Trinitron. Tremendous differences in image quality.

I'd kill to get my hands on something like that today :wub:

 

[exdeath]

if youre going to say you can only compare to the best crt's that were available, then you have to compare them to the best lcd's out right now and thats going to be a competition.

Nope. The difference between a good crt and a terrible one are HUGE, but the difference between a cheap LCD and a expensive one are not that great. CRTs ranged from 1 to 11 while LCD ranges from 7 to 10, ergo, statistically most people will say LCD is better.

In other words there really is no such thing as a shitty LCD, even a cheap no name one looks great, but there is no shortage of blurry misconverged (?) crap crts running 60 hz, etc

 

[exdeath]

Indeed it does..

But most people didn't have the better CRT's.. what sucks most is the bigger tube CRT's, like the Sony 34" that did 1080p and such.. had some serious reliability issues, and many were dead in two years.

There's a huge difference between these two types of CRT's:

So don't confuse your standard as-can-be 90's PC monitor with your higher end, flat screened Sony Trinitron. Tremendous differences in image quality.

I'd kill to get my hands on something like that today :wub:

So much this. Sony F series professional monitors were/are to die for. I still keep my F500R around, $1800 when new and worth every penny.

I tell people I enjoyed crisp perfect square stable LCD like image for many years before the"flat panel revolution" back when people associated LCD with digital wrist watches and the original Gameboy. They are so wowed when they hook up their first LCD and I'm just like /shrug.

I use a Sony PVM-20M4U NTSC/RGB studio monitor for my pre 480p game consoles as a 15khz RGB + composite sync monitor. Bought it new (only 100 hours in a private original owner editing bay) for $140 shipped, so yes people still buy CRTs

 

[BoomerD]

I definitely agree that there's a huge difference between cheap CRT monitors and quality CRT monitors.....

I came about -> <- close to driving down and at least looking at one of these:

http://www.keithmay.org/equipment/Sony_CPD-G520/Sony_CPD-G520_Spec_sheet.pdf

IF it's in good working order, it's definitely worth the $30 he's asking for it...BUT, when I factor in the cost of gas in the Expedition to go look at it...(about 125 miles each way) that kind of takes the shine off of the deal.

 

[exdeath]

I definitely agree that there's a huge difference between cheap CRT monitors and quality CRT monitors.....

I came about -> <- close to driving down and at least looking at one of these:

http://www.keithmay.org/equipment/Sony_CPD-G520/Sony_CPD-G520_Spec_sheet.pdf

IF it's in good working order, it's definitely worth the $30 he's asking for it...BUT, when I factor in the cost of gas in the Expedition to go look at it...(about 125 miles each way) that kind of takes the shine off of the deal.

Look for a GDM-F500R or GDM-F520 if you want the best PC CRT money can buy. Lightyears better than the CPD models.

 

[Throckmorton]

Indeed it does..

But most people didn't have the better CRT's.. what sucks most is the bigger tube CRT's, like the Sony 34" that did 1080p and such.. had some serious reliability issues, and many were dead in two years.

There's a huge difference between these two types of CRT's:

So don't confuse your standard as-can-be 90's PC monitor with your higher end, flat screened Sony Trinitron. Tremendous differences in image quality.

I'd kill to get my hands on something like that today :wub:

No. I had a G420, and it was unusable at 1600x1200 85hz. I had to go all the way down to 1280x960 for a sharp image. My dad uses it now, still at 1280x960, which is good for him.

I think you guys talking about how CRTs are better in every way must have cataracts or something!

Edit: OK I exaggerated, it wasn't unusable at 1600x1200 85hz, but it wasn't completely sharp. I spent hours adjusting convergence but it could never be perfect. For games it was OK, but you need complete clarity for text.

 

[exdeath]

No. I had a G420, and it was unusable at 1600x1200 75hz. I had to go all the way down to 1280x960 for a sharp image. My dad uses it now, still at 1280x960, which is good for him.

I think you guys talking about how CRTs are better in every way must have cataracts or something!

That's a F series, tons better than your G420. I wasn't impressed with a G series 19" either but a .22 mm constant pitch F series over shielded BNC at 1600x1200@85 is like looking at a photograph.

Your problem was a limp crappy unshielded VGA cable, I guarantee it. Keep in mind most peoples experience with CRT to LCD also coincides with the transition from analog dsub to digital dvi, and the cable contributes ALOT when running high resolutions over analog, where digital is unaffected.

At those resolutions over analog you absolutely must use individually shielded 75ohm coax cable cores. The blurriness you described is caused by capacitive coupling within the cable itself smudging the image at high frequencies. The resolution threshold you experienced between sharp and blurry is exactly where it typically occurs, going past 1024 and 1280 resolutions and higher refresh rates.

Most people in addition to having a cheap dollar store CRT also used a VGA cable the same diameter as their mouse cord, so they can't really objectively compare their CRT experience with LCD.

 

[BoomerD]

I never had any option for VGA cable with my 420GS...it came "built-in" to the monitor, and it's close to 1/2" in diameter.

 

[bobdole369]

Gawd, I agree with that. I HATE giving up my Trinitron CRT.

I used to be that way too. Once I went LCD and accepted it - I'm never going back. There is no advantage other than nostalgia. (well with an IPS screen that is) - once calibrated the screen blows away any CRT I've had - including Samsung trini's, and that awesome 19" 1600x1200 @ 85hz sony I had for years and years. (always ran at 1024x768 or 1280 though had the fuzz described - and now I know its attributable to the VGA cable.)

BTW - you are likely used to the slowly decreasing in brightness CRT - no way after 10+ years its anywhere near as bright as it was new - Those things actually do wear out.

I had an opportunity to score an F series pair of monitors in the 00's my dad fixes cat scans and they changed out those monitor they use to look at images. I didn't know what all those bnc's were on the back _ I was like "wheres the VGA?". Idiot....

 

[Zorander]

Agreed.

I was apprehensive too when I upgraded to my first LCD (PVA-panel Dell 2709W) but, once I got used to the chiefly larger screen, higher resolution and wide-screen AR, I never looked back. The extra desk space (depth) was also appreciated.

I kept the Sony mainly for nostalgic reasons and because it was still working fine. I'm thankful too for its image restoration feature which helps maintain its screen brightness.

 

[Throckmorton]

Agreed.

I was apprehensive too when I upgraded to my first LCD (PVA-panel Dell 2709W) but, once I got used to the chiefly larger screen, higher resolution and wide-screen AR, I never looked back. The extra desk space (depth) was also appreciated.

I kept the Sony mainly for nostalgic reasons and because it was still working fine. I'm thankful too for its image restoration feature which helps maintain its screen brightness.

Image restoration?

 

[Throckmorton]

I never had any option for VGA cable with my 420GS...it came "built-in" to the monitor, and it's close to 1/2" in diameter.

I didn't notice the cable being thin. I remember it being stiff to the point that it was annoying to manage. But definitely not 1/2"

 

[Zorander]

Image restoration?

You can find it somewhere in the Color settings. It can only be used when the monitor determines it has been warmed up enough (which can oddly take a while, somewhere between 10-20 minutes).

 

[BoomerD]

It's here...UPS just delivered the new Samsung monitor...in less than 48 hours from placing the order. Newegg ROCKS for service.

(stock photo, I'll try to post a pic of my own later.)

 

[ViviTheMage]

They were probably those average ass CRT's though.. with the curvy screen that bubbled.

I had an old flat screened Sony 19" Trinitron that died on me years ago and I still miss the hell out of it. It was the best looking monitor I owned.

The nicer and higher end tube CRT's are some of the finest displays known to man. Anyone who had the opportunity to get a 34" Sony Trinitron with 1080p were the luckiest people on this planet.. because it was only produced for a very brief period of time. I've never seen a better display in my life. Absolutely jaw dropping picture. Weighs 250 pounds though.

LCD's mainly pushed out CRT's because they were cheaper to manufacture and ship, not because they are superior technology.

They were flat faces .. 17" and 19" I think...didn't care, they were crap, just wanted them gone.

 

[Ross Ridge]

In other words there really is no such thing as a shitty LCD [...]

Oh, there is a such a thing a shitty LCD, they're pretty much standard issue on cheap laptops.

As for the issue of text clairity on CRTs, one thing to watch out for is ClearType and other text anti-aliasing systems that assume you're using an LCD. It ends up looking awful on CRTs or if you haven't configured it match the pixel layout of your LCD screen.

 

[exdeath]

Agreed.

I was apprehensive too when I upgraded to my first LCD (PVA-panel Dell 2709W) but, once I got used to the chiefly larger screen, higher resolution and wide-screen AR, I never looked back. The extra desk space (depth) was also appreciated.

I kept the Sony mainly for nostalgic reasons and because it was still working fine. I'm thankful too for its image restoration feature which helps maintain its screen brightness.

Yeah I made the switch around the time "16ms" was new and all the rage, the first real point in time where LCDs were finally "good enough" to accept the tradeoffs from CRT for their advantages.

Don't think I could ever go back to CRT for PC, but for native low res analog sources (240p game console stuff), CRT is still unbeat. No scaler required.

 

[exdeath]

Oh, there is a such a thing a shitty LCD, they're pretty much standard issue on cheap laptops.

As for the issue of text clairity on CRTs, one thing to watch out for is ClearType and other text anti-aliasing systems that assume you're using an LCD. It ends up looking awful on CRTs or if you haven't configured it match the pixel layout of your LCD screen.

But a shitty LCD is nowhere near as bad as a shitty CRT.

Problems with text and loss of fine detail on CRT, assuming a high end unit in the first place, is always the cable. The cable is EVERYTHING on a high frequency analog signal. The monitor itself (the F500R I've been talking about) not only had front panel adjustable separate horizontal and vertical convergence, focus, and landing zones, but had separate adjustments for each of those PER CORNER. Like I said... LCD like razor sharp perfectly square image on a CRT back in the late 90s when LCD to the consumer meant wrist watch or original GameBoy

 

[Arkaign]

That's a F series, tons better than your G420. I wasn't impressed with a G series 19" either but a .22 mm constant pitch F series over shielded BNC at 1600x1200@85 is like looking at a photograph.

Your problem was a limp crappy unshielded VGA cable, I guarantee it. Keep in mind most peoples experience with CRT to LCD also coincides with the transition from analog dsub to digital dvi, and the cable contributes ALOT when running high resolutions over analog, where digital is unaffected.

At those resolutions over analog you absolutely must use individually shielded 75ohm coax cable cores. The blurriness you described is caused by capacitive coupling within the cable itself smudging the image at high frequencies. The resolution threshold you experienced between sharp and blurry is exactly where it typically occurs, going past 1024 and 1280 resolutions and higher refresh rates.

Most people in addition to having a cheap dollar store CRT also used a VGA cable the same diameter as their mouse cord, so they can't really objectively compare their CRT experience with LCD.

This post is full of win.

 

[Arkaign]

And you know what? It actually still applies, though to a lesser degree. I've seen a few folks hooking up their PCs or Laptops to extra monitors using VGA output, and the difference between a cheap cable and a good cable can make a giant difference even to an LCD or flat-panel TV. Obviously with those devices you want HDMI, DVI, or DisplayPort if they are available, but if you have to use VGA, then you want a GOOD cable.

I remember having 5 or so (maybe 6??) well insulated BNC twist-on Coax cables to hook up some of my larger CRTs, and the result was stunning. The cable was extremely heavy and not that flexible, and cost nearly half as much as the video card that I bought with it at the time, some Matrox Millennium card or other.

 

[SonicIce]

NEC/Mitsubishi Diamondtron master race reporting in

 

[exdeath]

And you know what? It actually still applies, though to a lesser degree. I've seen a few folks hooking up their PCs or Laptops to extra monitors using VGA output, and the difference between a cheap cable and a good cable can make a giant difference even to an LCD or flat-panel TV. Obviously with those devices you want HDMI, DVI, or DisplayPort if they are available, but if you have to use VGA, then you want a GOOD cable.

I remember having 5 or so (maybe 6??) well insulated BNC twist-on Coax cables to hook up some of my larger CRTs, and the result was stunning. The cable was extremely heavy and not that flexible, and cost nearly half as much as the video card that I bought with it at the time, some Matrox Millennium card or other.

Poor analog signal is even worse on a digital flat panel, as all the ghosting and smudging is amplified by the display processor when scaled to the native resolution of the fixed pixel panel.