Dismantled my CRT today...

[Ichinisan]

I am/was well aware of the hazards of CRT's.

Besides grounding the thing (and insulating myself) not much you can do...other than not touch the nasty bits :awe:

I could probably get a picture of a ghetto rigged grounding wire dangling from a screwdriver if you wish.

No. I would NOT ground myself while working around large capacitors. YOU become the path to ground that the electricity would take.

I would definitely try to drain the caps by pushing the power button a few times or holding it for a few seconds while the AC is disconnected. Then I would still be cautious. I'd ground myself for a moment, then disconnect from ground before I go poking around in there.

[edit]

I read the post incorrectly. :/

 

[UnclePauly]

Lol. There is zero reason in 2015 to be using a CRT monitor. Just give it up man. Even professional photographers and video editors don't use CRTs anymore.

WTF? There's every reason in the world to use whatever you like. What are you a monitor nazi? Every tech since CRT has been a tradeoff. Not one tech since has beat CRT in motion clarity or input lag because CRT had perfect motion and zero input lag. It has been beat in other areas but if motion and input lag along with top notch(but not perfect) black levels and color quality are your thing a CRT excels in all those areas. I have an FW900(widescreen 16:10 2340x1440res @ 80hz) CRT and an IPS 27" 1440P screen and depending on what I'm doing I switch between them. The FW900 can't be beat for games I can A/B them and it's no contest.

 

[flexy]

Zero reason other than excellent color and uniformity, excellent black and contrast levels, high refresh rates, low/no input lag, variable resolutions and high PPI...all at the same time.

Yup, but convergence problems which I am almost certain you had since you needed to adjust it. And by the way (have to remember back like 900 years now) I have not ever had a CRT with "perfect" convergence, it's technically impossible.

 

[Dave2150]

Before moving to lcd I ran a Sony g400 Trinitron crt and my current Dell 2709w is way better than it was and it's over 5 years old. I don't have any wire shadows and it has excellent colors with no light bleed. Time to stop living in the past.

Judging by his forum name, he's still cooking his food over an open fire also. I wouldn't encourage him.

 

[EliteRetard]

No. I would NOT ground myself while working around large capacitors. YOU become the path to ground that the electricity would take.

I would definitely try to drain the caps by pushing the power button a few times or holding it for a few seconds while the AC is disconnected. Then I would still be cautious. I'd ground myself for a moment, then disconnect from ground before I go poking around in there.

I'm pretty sure you didn't read that correctly.
Either way though it's OK with me.

 

[EliteRetard]

Yup, but convergence problems which I am almost certain you had since you needed to adjust it. And by the way (have to remember back like 900 years now) I have not ever had a CRT with "perfect" convergence, it's technically impossible.

Actually I have had almost no convergence issues at all (or geometry problems). The adjustments I wanted were for color balance (serious cleaning of dust and small tweaks to voltage). At 135 PPI if I look really closely I can indeed see some slight convergence issues. At my normal 126 PPI at normal viewing distances my monitor is notably sharper than most normal LCDs (mostly due to their low PPI of 90-100).

 

[Ichinisan]

I'm pretty sure you didn't read that correctly.
Either way though it's OK with me.

You are correct. I read it wrong.

 

[EliteRetard]

Judging by his forum name, he's still cooking his food over an open fire also. I wouldn't encourage him.

This is true, fire is free as long as I can find the supplies. My only cookware is an old cast iron pot w/ lid I was gifted, and it works great in fire. Most often though I go without cooking, the quality of food I normally have access to is not high enough. I haven't cooked anything in at least a week or two, I can't actually recall right now. I've been eating old plain oatmeal paste. Seriously. Last actual meal I had was over with family during thanksgiving, I know I helped cook then.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I've been eating old plain oatmeal paste.QUOTE]

I just have to ask this question: was your porridge too hot, too cold or just right?

 

[TestKing123]

Zero reason other than excellent color and uniformity, excellent black and contrast levels, high refresh rates, low/no input lag, variable resolutions and high PPI...all at the same time.

If I could buy a bigger better CRT brand new today I would. I'll accept defeat on 4:3 and take a widescreen. I'm willing to spend stupid amounts of money on a good monitor. Perhaps a nice 27" CRT with a max 16:9 4k at 80Hz and say a "standard" of 3k at 100Hz.

I got nothing against progress, but in the last decade we have only barely gotten back to where we were. If there were a flat panel tech that could meet or beat a CRT in every category at the same time I'd be throwing my money at it. OLED has been the hottest new thing that will be "out next year" for the last decade as well. I don't think I've even heard of a decent prototype OLED monitor yet.

What exactly are you using your CRT for? Professional services, or gaming? If it's gaming, then you should be given 6 lashes, and then 6 more.

There's no reason to keep a CRT today for gaming. Or last year. Or the year before. Or the last 8 years for that matter. What's the dot pitch of that CRT? I'm pretty sure whatever it is, it would never produce a crisp, colorful image for gaming that IPS LED's delivered for how long now?

Now if you're using the CRT for other purposes than gaming, then I can understand. If not, then :facepalm:

I remember when I was stubborn to let go of my 1600x1200 CRT for gaming, and I can't remember how many years ago that was. Must be a decade.

 

[TestKing123]

I've been playing classic NES games back and forth on a CRT and on a $5,000 LCD and I can tell you that the CRT beats the LCD hands down in every way imaginable. There are artifacts and latency and fuzziness galore even when disabling image enhancements and using game mode. It's less noticeable on SNES games due to extra colors and detail that hide the artifacts but even that is still much better on a CRT.

LCDs have a fixed resolution and require scaling for non-native resolutions. This is an inescapable disadvantage for content at lower resolutions. This has not changed no matter how high quality the LCD.

I'm sure playing classic NES games on a Samsung Galaxy S6 beats the CRT in every imaginable way possible also.

BTW what's this $5000 LCD that you play NES games on?

 

[CZroe]

What exactly are you using your CRT for? Professional services, or gaming? If it's gaming, then you should be given 6 lashes, and then 6 more.



There's no reason to keep a CRT today for gaming. Or last year. Or the year before. Or the last 8 years for that matter. What's the dot pitch of that CRT? I'm pretty sure whatever it is, it would never produce a crisp, colorful image for gaming that IPS LED's delivered for how long now?



Now if you're using the CRT for other purposes than gaming, then I can understand. If not, then :facepalm:



I remember when I was stubborn to let go of my 1600x1200 CRT for gaming, and I can't remember how many years ago that was. Must be a decade.

LOL! You have no idea what you're talking about. Old games scale TERRIBLY on a fixed-resolution display and there is no such thing as an "IPS LED." I'd like to see you get a Zapper or R.O.B. even working on an LCD, plasma, OLED, LCOS, DLP, or anything other than a CRT.

I'm sure playing classic NES games on a Samsung Galaxy S6 beats the CRT in every imaginable way possible also.



BTW what's this $5000 LCD that you play NES games on?

Hold on while I plug my 4-player multi tap in and challenge my friends in Mario Kart 64 on a 5.x" device (we still play regularly). Would you brag about beating Battletoads on an emulator? With an emulator ANYONE could, so *yawn* good for you.

Even the parts you aren't dead wrong about, you aren't telling us anything we don't know. I guarantee you that I was emulating NES games before you had ever heard of an NES emulator (they didn't even have functioning sound yet). I emulated Gameboy and SNES on an N64 with homebrew software and a V64 backup unit in the '90s (not talking about the emulator built in to Pokemon Stadium). A 5.x" phone isn't even a replacement for a 10" tablet and I wouldn't game with friends on a 10" tablet either.

I still have a Sony Ericsson Xperia PLAY 4G "PlayStation" phone specifically for emulators and I will be the first to say that emulators are NOWHERE NEAR authentic and are not a substitute for the original.

Emulators still cut off Dan Owsen's voice in Star Fox. There are still layering problems in Illusion of Gaia and Killer Instinct. The ZSNES devs didn't even know there was a problem with steerable barrels in DKC2: Diddy's Kong Quest until I told them they weren't supposed to be steerable and demonstrated it on a real console (appeared intentional). The demonstration when you wait on the Mario Paint title screen still goes way out of sync as do the demos on many other games. And good luck running Higane on your phone (the only emulator of any console platform that people who know would dare to call "accurate"). Most emulators even fail to emulate the disconnected second controller for games that modify the 2p mode for a single controller when one is disconnected (Super Mario World and Super Mario All*Stars both do this).

N64 is even worse because nothing emulates the RCP correctly (motion blur and particle effects can be approximated but they are usually missing entirely). Even Mario 64 doesn't work right. Controls don't even translate correctly. Without an Adaptoid to allow the emulated N64 game to use a real N64 controller directly through an API, you can barely do the basic spin attack in The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask. You walk backwards in Blast Corps when the stick overdrives and the input plugins, emulators, and OS control panels don't always give you enough to tweak this away. You spin out for no reason far more frequently in Mario Kart 64 (developers wanted to discourage 3rd-party controllers).

This crap happens even on Nintendo's own Virtual console ON THEIR OWN GAMES/PLATFORMS. The vines and characters go invisible when DKC is paused but they actually keep swinging so they aren't where they should be when you un-pause. The castle falls apart at the end of Ninja Gaiden almost like it should except the pieces are duplicated and the entire castle is still standing and 100% intact when it finishes.

Some things I can't even put my finger on but I know it's not accurate. Like I can spend ages restarting Super Mario Kart for a perfect 1st place every track first try run and not accomplish it after hundreds of attempts and then I get it first try on a home consoles. Nothing feels wrong with the game, but something tells me that the AI or other characteristics are somehow different.

The $5,000 LCD is a Sony Wega Bravia XBR that pales in comparison to my $2,300 CRT Sony Wega Trinitron XBR (still rated highest image quality across all televisions ever made back when I wanted something bigger and bought the best LCD I could afford).

 

[TestKing123]

LOL! You have no idea what you're talking about. Old games scale TERRIBLY on a fixed-resolution display and there is no such thing as an "IPS LED." I'd like to see you get a Zapper or R.O.B. even working on an LCD, plasma, OLED, LCOS, DLP, or anything other than a CRT.

Old games? How old? Seems every game in existence has supported 1080p/720p for the last decade. Who cares about fixed resolution when you adjust the game to the res, not the other way around.

Ever heard of IPS with LED backlighting? Obviously not. :rollseyes

Hold on while I plug my 4-player multi tap in and challenge my friends in Mario Kart 64 on a 5.x" device (we still play regularly). Would you brag about beating Battletoads on an emulator? With an emulator ANYONE could, so *yawn* good for you.

Now it's N64 games? :rollseyes

I remember playing Super Mario Bros 3 on my pre-android phone years ago on an emulator and it was hella more enjoyable than on a TV, probably because I can sit on the toilet and play at the same time. :rollseyes

Even the parts you aren't dead wrong about, you aren't telling us anything we don't know. I guarantee you that I was emulating NES games before you had ever heard of an NES emulator (they didn't even have functioning sound yet). I emulated Gameboy and SNES on an N64 with homebrew software and a V64 backup unit in the '90s (not talking about the emulator built in Pokemon Stadium). A 5.x" phone isn't even a replacement for a 10" tablet and I wouldn't game with friends on a 10" tablet either.

I still have a Sony Ericsson Xperia PLAY 4G "PlayStation" phone specifically for emulators and I will be the first to say that emulators are NOWHERE NEAR authentic and are not a substitute for the original.

Well, not everyone wants to play old NES/Gameboy games on a TV. Rather do it on the toilet. And if you DID want to, seems like a REALLLY frivolous argument to justify CRT over a modern day flat panel.

Emulators still cut off Dan Owsen's voice in Star Fox. There are still layering problems in Illusion of Gaia and Killer Instinct. The ZSNES devs didn't even know there was a problem with steerable barrels in DKC2: Diddy's Kong Quest until I told them they weren't supposed to be steerable and demonstrated it on a real console (appeared intentional). The demonstration when you wait on the Mario Paint title screen still goes way out of sync as do the demos on many other games. And good luck running Higane on your phone (the only emulator of any console platform that people who know would dare to call "accurate"). Most emulators even fail to emulate the disconnected second controller for games that modify the 2p mode for a single controller when one is disconnected (Super Mario World and Super Mario All*Stars both do this).

N64 is even worse because nothing emulates the RCP correctly (motion blur and particle effects can be approximated but they are usually missing entirely). Even Mario 64 doesn't work right. Controls don't even translate correctly. Without an Adaptoid to allow the emulated N64 game to use a real N64 controller directly through an API, you can barely do the basic spin attack in The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask. You walk backwards in Blast Corps when the stick overdrives and the input plugins, emulators, and OS control panels don't always give you enough to tweak this away. You spin out for no reason far more frequently in Mario Kart 64 (developers wanted to discourage 3rd-party controllers).

This crap happens even on Nintendo's own Virtual console ON THEIR OWN GAMES/PLATFORMS. The vines and characters go invisible when DKC is paused but they actually keep swinging so they aren't where they should be when you un-pause. The castle falls apart at the end of Ninja Gaiden almost like it should except the pieces are duplicated and the entire castle is still standing and 100% intact when it finishes.

Sorry you had to type that all out, but I don't really care about emulators. The only one I run is Dolphin (for Wii), and that supports 3D/native res. Prior, just don't care anymore.

Some things I can't even put my finger on but I know it's not accurate. Like I can spend ages restating Super Mario Kart for a perfect 1st place every track first try run and not accomplish it after hundreds of attempts and then I get it first try on a home consoles. Nothing feels wrong with the game, but something tells me that the AI or other characteristics are somehow different.



The $5,000 LCD is a Sony Wega Bravia XBR that pales in comparison to my $2,300 CRT Sony Wega Trinitron XBR (still rated highest image quality across all televisions ever made back when I wanted something bigger and bought the best LCD I could afford).

I'm not interested in emulators anymore. Since you're so into it, it makes sense a CRT would be better. But I really don't think that represents the majority of users, and why it should be used as an argument for most people as well.

 

[CZroe]

Old games? How old? Seems every game in existence has supported 1080p/720p for the last decade. Who cares about fixed resolution when you adjust the game to the res, not the other way around.

Kids. Call me back when you figure out how to add system-wide HD settings for Atari, NES, Genesis, SNES, 3DO, Saturn, PSX, N64, DC, PS2, GameCube, etc. Heck: even the PS3.

When the PS3 launched one of the biggest complaint was that many HDTV owners were forced to play in 480i/p due to it supporting one HD resolution or another. Most HDTV monitors sold by 2006 expected you to set that to match your TV's resolution on your player or HDTV tuner but only the XBOX 360 thought to include a scaler chip to independently set output resolution. Even then, the XBOX 360 sold MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of units with no out of the box HD capabilities (required proprietary Component cables and had no HDMI port). The only HD option for a huge part of it's install base is Component... an ANALOG output. Even when they finally added HDMI it remained exclusive to a high-end Halo 3 SKU for another year or two (just about anyone who cared about Halo already had an XBOX 360).

We are only two short years into the follow up generation and you are acting like the problems of the previous generation don't exist. Do "old games" mean "2013 launch titles" in your vocabulary?!

Ever heard of IPS with LED backlighting? Obviously not. :rollseyes

I obviously HAVE, and I use it as a litmus test for identifying idiots who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to display technology. LED is a backlights technology, yes. There were different kinds of backlight technologies before LED got popularized and they didn't feel the need to make them a bullet point on the box. 95% of "LED TVs" actually have inferior backlighting performance than existing technologies.

An array of LEDs can provide more uniform backlighting and better black levels due to being spread across the back and being able to strategically turn off the backlight where things are supposed to appear black. The problem is, most manufacturers switched to LED for no other reason than to make their TVs thinner or edge-lit or lower-power. These things HARM picture quality. It's a bullet point on the box for clueless people to run with. It's not just you. I laughed out loud when a sales person at Wal-Mart, THE person you want to talk to for home theater recommendations, tried to help my friend pick a TV by asking him what kind of pointlessly non-specific backlight technology he wanted (answering "LED or LCD?" Is meaningless outside the context of array vs. edge lighting).

"What kind of LCD do you want? Super-thin but uneven edge lighting, traditional more even backlighting, or the deeper-blacks and uniformity of array backlighting?"

Now it's N64 games? :rollseyes



I remember playing Super Mario Bros 3 on my pre-android phone years ago on an emulator and it was hella more enjoyable than on a TV, probably because I can sit on the toilet and play at the same time. :rollseyes

You're not very good at this. Have fun playing alone. I played Super Mario Bros. 3 the night before last night and it was social (brother, roommate, roommate's girlfriend, etc). I've got another friend coming over to challenge my brother and I to Mario Kart 64 this weekend.

We play A LOT more than N64. Yes, the "old games" we refer to include N64. In case you hadn't noticed, I discussed examples from SNES, NES, N64, and more.

Well, not everyone wants to play old NES/Gameboy games on a TV. Rather do it on the toilet. And if you DID want to, seems like a REALLLY frivolous argument to justify CRT over a modern day flat panel.

And yet you just came into the his thread where we mentioned it as a specific advantage for CRTs and unequivocally proclaimed that modern TVs are the best and most appropriate way for everyone.

Your argument fails. It is very technically NOT "the best" for the old games we were talking about. We very clearly stated that. You are the one who seems to think we are talking about "old games" for HD consoles.

Sorry you had to type that all out, but I don't really care about emulators. The only one I run is Dolphin (for Wii), and that supports 3D/native res. Prior, just don't care anymore.

Good for you.

I'm not interested in emulators anymore. Since you're so into it, it makes sense a CRT would be better. But I really don't think that represents the majority of users, and why it should be used as an argument for most people as well.

WE WERE NEVER TALKING ABOUT MAJORITIES. We were specifically talking about a specific category of games that are better experienced on a CRT because they do not scale well to modern fixed-resolution displays. It really is that simple.

 

[Ichinisan]

... I'm not interested in emulators anymore. Since you're so into it, it makes sense a CRT would be better. But I really don't think that represents the majority of users, and why it should be used as an argument for most people as well.

I don't think anyone suggested that a CRT was the right choice for "the majority of users" or for "most people."

 

[EliteRetard]

I've been eating old plain oatmeal paste.

I just have to ask this question: was your porridge too hot, too cold or just right?

Uh...room temperature.
I have a big pot of the stuff sitting on a shelf.
When I'm hungry I got eat some of it.
There's probably still a few days worth left in the pot.

 

[TestKing123]

Kids. Call me back when you figure out how to add system-wide HD settings for Atari, NES, Genesis, SNES, 3DO, Saturn, PSX, N64, DC, PS2, GameCube, etc. Heck: even the PS3.

How about, who cares? Live in the past much? Tell me how Witcher 3 would look better on a CRT so I can have a good laugh.

When the PS3 launched one of the biggest complaint was that many HDTV owners were forced to play in 480i/p due to it supporting one HD resolution or another. Most HDTV monitors sold by 2006 expected you to set that to match your TV's resolution on your player or HDTV tuner but only the XBOX 360 thought to include a scaler chip to independently set output resolution. Even then, the XBOX 360 sold MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of units with no out of the box HD capabilities (required proprietary Component cables and had no HDMI port). The only HD option for a huge part of it's install base is Component... an ANALOG output. Even when they finally added HDMI it remained exclusive to a high-end Halo 3 SKU for another year or two (just about anyone who cared about Halo already had an XBOX 360).

Console gamers LOL. I see you're passionate about the PS3, and it did come out when CRT's and regular analog TV's still had a major presence. I don't believe later PS3 games had issues with 1080p/720p output (despite it being rendered internally at a lower resolution), but then again if you still have the early PS3 models, feel free to continue using a CRT and live in the past.

We are only two short years into the follow up generation and you are acting like the problems of the previous generation don't exist. Do "old games" mean "2013 launch titles" in your vocabulary?!

My Xbox 360 Slim outputted fine in 1080p when I played Red Dead Redemption and Alan Wake. This was when I had my high end Samsung LED 3DTV. If you're telling me the picture output would have been better on a CRT, then :rollseyes LOL

I obviously HAVE, and I use it as a litmus test for identifying idiots who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to display technology. LED is a backlights technology, yes. There were different kinds of backlight technologies before LED got popularized and they didn't feel the need to make them a bullet point on the box. 95% of "LED TVs" actually have inferior backlighting performance than existing technologies.

Litmus test? LOL.

An array of LEDs can provide more uniform backlighting and better black levels due to being spread across the back and being able to strategically turn off the backlight where things are supposed to appear black. The problem is, most manufacturers switched to LED for no other reason than to make their TVs thinner or edge-lit or lower-power. These things HARM picture quality. It's a bullet point on the box for clueless people to run with. It's not just you. I laughed out loud when a sales person at Wal-Mart, THE person you want to talk to for home theater recommendations, tried to help my friend pick a TV by asking him what kind of pointlessly non-specific backlight technology he wanted (answering "LED or LCD?" Is meaningless outside the context of array vs. edge lighting).

"What kind of LCD do you want? Super-thin but uneven edge lighting, traditional more even backlighting, or the deeper-blacks and uniformity of array backlighting?"

Sounds like you don't know the difference between full-array local dimming LED and CCFL backlighting. Simply stating LED's are "inferior" to CCFL doesn't make it true, especially since budget LCD's continued to use CCFL while LED TV's continued to evolve and provide better picture quality overall.

You're not very good at this. Have fun playing alone. I played Super Mario Bros. 3 the night before last night and it was social (brother, roommate, roommate's girlfriend, etc). I've got another friend coming over to challenge my brother and I to Mario Kart 64 this weekend.

Good for you! Mario Kart 64! LOL.

Amusing as your statement is, I'm not sure if you're being serious. Are you seriously comparing Super Mario Bros 3 to a modern multiplayer game like Battlefield? If you're talking about living room multiplayer, well that's what a Wii is for LOL.

We play A LOT more than N64. Yes, the "old games" we refer to include N64. In case you hadn't noticed, I discussed examples from SNES, NES, N64, and more.


And yet you just came into the his thread where we mentioned it as a specific advantage for CRTs and unequivocally proclaimed that modern TVs are the best and most appropriate way for everyone.

Your argument fails. It is very technically NOT "the best" for the old games we were talking about. We very clearly stated that. You are the one who seems to think we are talking about "old games" for HD consoles.

I suppose that is my fault for not stating I was referring to PC games. However, I didn't see in the OP where he mentioned NES games or the like. And, my original post was not intended for consoles no longer being made. I was responding to the suggestion that flat panels are still inferior to CRTs, which this post clearly implied:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37821672&postcount=4

Good for you.


WE WERE NEVER TALKING ABOUT MAJORITIES. We were specifically talking about a specific category of games that are better experienced on a CRT because they do not scale well to modern fixed-resolution displays. It really is that simple.

See above.

 

[EliteRetard]

What exactly are you using your CRT for? Professional services, or gaming? If it's gaming, then you should be given 6 lashes, and then 6 more.

There's no reason to keep a CRT today for gaming. Or last year. Or the year before. Or the last 8 years for that matter. What's the dot pitch of that CRT? I'm pretty sure whatever it is, it would never produce a crisp, colorful image for gaming that IPS LED's delivered for how long now?

Now if you're using the CRT for other purposes than gaming, then I can understand. If not, then :facepalm:

I remember when I was stubborn to let go of my 1600x1200 CRT for gaming, and I can't remember how many years ago that was. Must be a decade.

I've stated the PPI of my monitor a few times, and it obviously varies with resolution. I normally run 1920x1440 and that's a PPI of 126, dot pitch of .20

It produces a very sharp colorful image. I've compared it in person to several LCD's from a 15" 1080 IPS laptop screen, to a 27" P2715Q 4k Dell, up to a 50" M50-C1 4k Vizio with FALD. And a very large variety of everything in between.

Nothing else quite gets it all right like my CRT. Sure there are now finally some options that would be good enough...but my CRT hasn't died yet and I'm not rich. You might wipe with 100's, but I eat out of dumpsters. I'm not gonna throw away superior stuff simply because it's out of style.

I'm quite glad it's made it this long, because LCD's have been garbage until recently. Saved me the money and lots of eye bleeding. When it goes though, I'll pony up for something good...even if I have to sell a few gallons of blood and do some other unspeakable things for the cash. Maybe I'll jack one of your cars, not like you'll notice.

 

[EliteRetard]

How about, who cares? Live in the past much? Tell me how Witcher 3 would look better on a CRT so I can have a good laugh.

Looks better on my CRT than the VA 27" 1080 LCD my friend has.
Better black levels, contrast, color and no motion blur.

I suppose that is my fault for not stating I was referring to PC games. However, I didn't see in the OP where he mentioned NES games or the like. And, my original post was not intended for consoles no longer being made. I was responding to the suggestion that flat panels are still inferior to CRTs, which this post clearly implied:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37821672&postcount=4

I play a lot of old DOS games, cause they kick ass. X-Com, Masters of Orion, Duke Nukem, even arcade stuff like Tyrian. So NES games, but more of the "like". But yes, my CRT still looks better than a brand new modern 4k FALD LCD for "modern" games too.

 

[TestKing123]

I've stated the PPI of my monitor a few times, and it obviously varies with resolution. I normally run 1920x1440 and that's a PPI of 126, dot pitch of .20

It produces a very sharp colorful image. I've compared it in person to several LCD's from a 15" 1080 IPS laptop screen, to a 27" P2715Q 4k Dell, up to a 50" M50-C1 4k Vizio with FALD. And a very large variety of everything in between.

Nothing else quite gets it all right like my CRT. Sure there are now finally some options that would be good enough...but my CRT hasn't died yet and I'm not rich. You might wipe with 100's, but I eat out of dumpsters. I'm not gonna throw away superior stuff simply because it's out of style.

I'm quite glad it's made it this long, because LCD's have been garbage until recently. Saved me the money and lots of eye bleeding. When it goes though, I'll pony up for something good...even if I have to sell a few gallons of blood and do some other unspeakable things for the cash. Maybe I'll jack one of your cars, not like you'll notice.

I don't think you can apply "ppi" to a CRT monitor. A CRT doesn't have individual pixels. I had a viewsonic g90f (believe that was the model number), also with .20 dot pitch @ 19", and the image it gave @ 1920x1440 was "fuzzy" compared to a true 1080p display. At the time I had it, it had better contrast/color,bla compared to LCD's at the time....but that was almost 10 years ago. Complaining about "black levels" and contrast is quite humorous when current LCD's are quite simply comparable (and have been for some time), it's like someone swearing up and down their 1969 Charger is better than the 2015 version. :lol:

It's not like they're expensive either. Quite literally quite a few gaming 1440p panels out there.

 

[TestKing123]

Looks better on my CRT than the VA 27" 1080 LCD my friend has.
Better black levels, contrast, color and no motion blur.

What looks better? Witcher 3? Without a model number I don't know what you're comparing to. Why don't you post a high resolution screenshot? I guarantee your amazing CRT image is fuzzy and bland compared to any gaming 1440p display. Colors and black levels on a CRT has no distinguishable advantage over a gaming display in 2015. Motion blur? Have you used a 144hz display like the Asus Rog? What's driving your gaming rig? Seems to me like you're comparing entry level LCD's to a piss poor gaming system.

I play a lot of old DOS games, cause they kick ass. X-Com, Masters of Orion, Duke Nukem, even arcade stuff like Tyrian. So NES games, but more of the "like". But yes, my CRT still looks better than a brand new modern 4k FALD LCD for "modern" games too.

No, you only THINK it does (for modern games). Funny I was exactly like you when I had my Viewsonic. I didn't want to let go because games like Dungeon Siege looked so much better on the Viewsonic (compared to LCD's at that time). It took me to get into 3d gaming to make the switch to LCD. By the time I got to my old Samsung 3DTV, it blew my CRT out of the water in just about every category because panels continued to evolve (current display is now an LG 65" 4k 3DTV powered by two 980 Ti's). I know the few little CRT owners that remain cling to that "natural" look, due to blurrying of all individual pixels because there isn't a CRT out today that can match an LCD in actual PPI, but that's an illusion. The only real advantage a CRT has is the ability to display native content without any sort of scalar.

 

[EliteRetard]

I don't think you can apply "ppi" to a CRT monitor. A CRT doesn't have individual pixels. I had a viewsonic g90f (believe that was the model number), also with .20 dot pitch @ 19", and the image it gave @ 1920x1440 was "fuzzy" compared to a true 1080p display. At the time I had it, it had better contrast/color,bla compared to LCD's at the time....but that was almost 10 years ago. Complaining about "black levels" and contrast is quite humorous when current LCD's are quite simply comparable (and have been for some time), it's like someone swearing up and down their 1969 Charger is better than the 2015 version. :lol:

It's not like they're expensive either. Quite literally quite a few gaming 1440p panels out there.

You're correct about the PPI, there are no pixels on a CRT. However it's still a useful number that can compare resolution vs screen size between LCD and CRT.

So you're one of those people who'll swear your 2015 charger is better when I show up and physically surpass you in every way. I beat you in a quarter mile, I beat you in handling, I beat you in MPG, I beat you in ride comfort, I beat you in style etc.

It's O.K. to be butt hurt, but you can't convince me when I have the physical proof sitting right here saying otherwise. I have had my CRT side by side with a huge array of LCD's including some of the newest "best" LCDs and tech out there, and my CRT is better when all the important aspects are added up.

Accurate uniform screen (no uneven back lights, color shifting etc), accurate color without banding, black levels that don't "crush" or "glow", no motion blur, high "PPI" and plenty sharp (no fuzz on mine), high refresh rate, etc etc. If I had something other than a potato to take pics with I'd take some shots of my screen.

The only thing I haven't had a chance to compare to is OLED. I've had high hopes for that tech for like 5+ years. Maybe one day it'll actually happen.

 

[EliteRetard]

*snip*
No, you only THINK it does (for modern games). Funny I was exactly like you when I had my Viewsonic. I didn't want to let go because games like Dungeon Siege looked so much better on the Viewsonic (compared to LCD's at that time). It took me to get into 3d gaming to make the switch to LCD. By the time I got to my old Samsung 3DTV, it blew my CRT out of the water in just about every category because panels continued to evolve. I know the few little CRT owners that remain cling to that "natural" look, due to blurrying of all individual pixels because there isn't a CRT out today that can match an LCD in actual PPI, but that's an illusion. The only real advantage a CRT has is the ability to display native content without any sort of scalar.

I guess you don't realize that modern GPU's have multiple outputs. Not only that, but you can utilize more than one at once, and actually clone the display. OK OK calm down, don't hyperventilate. I know that must be some shocking news to you but it's all OK. Now I'm going to tell you (as I already have) that I have compared high end LCD's side by side directly with my CRT.

Ha lul'z...yes tell me again how that vomit looking smearing ISN'T motion blur, and how the perfect clarity on my CRT is inferior because it's "fuzzy" (even though it's not).

Tell me how that purple glowing black is so much better than the dark black on my CRT. Yes...purple black is so much more natural.

Yes tell me how a large 1080 screen has much higher PPI than my CRT because the PPI is a lie! The high res I'm running isn't really high res because it's higher than an LCD of equal size and thus it's imaginary or something. Or aliens.

You must have some really magical berries to munch on. I'm poor though so I'm stuck with non-hallucinogenic regular old oatmeal. Anyway, I'm not really arguing that an LCD can't have high PPI, or decent color, or high refresh, or any of those things...I'm arguing that no LCD I have seen has more than a few of those qualities. And I can see which areas each LCD is lacking when comparing to a screen that isn't lacking in said areas. Even LCD to LCD it's quite obvious there are differences.

 

[TestKing123]

You're correct about the PPI, there are no pixels on a CRT. However it's still a useful number that can compare resolution vs screen size between LCD and CRT.

If there's no pixels it's not a useful number at all. PPI for displays have a definite meaning, the number of actual pixels you can cram into a square inch. Comparing PPI between an iPad 2 and an LCD monitor has meaning. "PPI" in a CRT has no meaning. You have scan lines, not a method to light up a single pixel.

So you're one of those people who'll swear your 2015 charger is better when I show up and physically surpass you in every way. I beat you in a quarter mile, I beat you in handling, I beat you in MPG, I beat you in ride comfort, I beat you in style etc.

Problem is it's the 2015 version that has the better quarter mile, handling, mpg, etc..

Start saving your pennies:
http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronic...9644361&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=lg+4k+oled+3dtv

It's O.K. to be butt hurt, but you can't convince me when I have the physical proof sitting right here saying otherwise. I have had my CRT side by side with a huge array of LCD's including some of the newest "best" LCDs and tech out there, and my CRT is better when all the important aspects are added up.

It's ok to live in the past. You do play old console games as you've mentioned, where a CRT would be better. But don't tell me with a straight face Witcher 3 looks better on an old CRT compared to a modern day panel. You haven't even mentioned what exactly you game on, other than some old consoles. It's not like I haven't used a CRT before either, I was in your shoes as I've said. But, I've moved on long ago without pretending display tech hasn't evolved at all. If you ask me, OLED completley negates the need for an CRT, but you didn't need to wait for OLED. High end panels of years past already had superb color (like Samsung's line of high end LED TV's), black levels and contrast where clinging on to a CRT specifically for those reasons was just silly, especially since no CRT can match the sharpness and PPI of those (and any) panels.

Accurate uniform screen (no uneven back lights, color shifting etc), accurate color without banding, black levels that don't "crush" or "glow", no motion blur, high "PPI" and plenty sharp (no fuzz on mine), high refresh rate, etc etc. If I had something other than a potato to take pics with I'd take some shots of my screen.

Funny, had no issues like that on my current and prior panels. Must be a CRT thing where you can only compare to entry level LCD's.

The only thing I haven't had a chance to compare to is OLED. I've had high hopes for that tech for like 5+ years. Maybe one day it'll actually happen.

Start saving your pennies.

 

[TestKing123]

I guess you don't realize that modern GPU's have multiple outputs. Not only that, but you can utilize more than one at once, and actually clone the display. OK OK calm down, don't hyperventilate. I know that must be some shocking news to you but it's all OK. Now I'm going to tell you (as I already have) that I have compared high end LCD's side by side directly with my CRT.

Lulz looks like a blanket statement to me. What LCD's have you compared? And you seem to be the one upset because I don't buy your CRT hype. :lol:

Ha lul'z...yes tell me again how that vomit looking smearing ISN'T motion blur, and how the perfect clarity on my CRT is inferior because it's "fuzzy" (even though it's not).

Vomit looking smearing? Of course, if you're looking at entry level LCD's from office depot :lulz:.

How many scan lines on your CRT again?

Tell me how that purple glowing black is so much better than the dark black on my CRT. Yes...purple black is so much more natural.

Purple black? Where? office depot?

Yes tell me how a large 1080 screen has much higher PPI than my CRT because the PPI is a lie! The high res I'm running isn't really high res because it's higher than an LCD of equal size and thus it's imaginary or something. Or aliens.

Resolution is different than PPI. You're using PPI where it isn't applicable. You're comparing scan lines to actual pixels under the same PPI moniker, which doesn't make sense. Like aliens.

You must have some really magical berries to munch on. I'm poor though so I'm stuck with non-hallucinogenic regular old oatmeal. Anyway, I'm not really arguing that an LCD can't have high PPI, or decent color, or high refresh, or any of those things...I'm arguing that no LCD I have seen has more than a few of those qualities. And I can see which areas each LCD is lacking when comparing to a screen that isn't lacking in said areas. Even LCD to LCD it's quite obvious there are differences.

Somehow I believe being poor is just an excuse to not buy yourself a brand new gaming display to play Witcher 3.