Nice Maynak - how much you selling it for? What do you think about the FW-900 vs the new 120hz lcd monitors?
The 120hz LCDs are 80-85% as good as a CRT but they will never be as good, nor any LCD except maybe some of those very high-end, high-bit color LCDs and even then there are limits.
Most if not all LCDs have some input lag
, there are a few LCDs with no input lag and some with enabled modes that allow for no input lag. Also paying for the quality of better colors and better panels like some of those 1000-5000+ dollar plus monitors and you better believe they will have very high levels of input lag 25-50ms+. So yet again you have a trade off either you go TN panel and 120hz or pay a little more for color quality and stick with 60hz. On a higher end CRT you get both in particular to aperture grille-style CRTs.
The response time(amount of time it takes for pixels to change state) of a CRT is around the high nanosecond, low microsecond if they are of good quality and have good quality phosphors. That's one to two magnitudes lower than an LCD. On an LCD the response time is 2-8ms but that's for WtW, BtB, GtG not for the other colors(which is ironic because LCDs can never display black due to being indirect light and yet they can do so quickly
) and that's response time on top of refresh rate. So if your LCD is 60hz(or 1000/60 = 16.6666667 milliseconds), the WtW, GtG, BtB is 16.68(rounded
) + 2-8ms. As for the other colors that number ranges from the refresh rate itself(some colors on some panels can be as fast
) all the way up and over 100 milliseconds and that's on top of the refresh rate.
A 2003 google archive article I read a few years ago comparing a CRT vs an LCD even though TN panels made cheap ass CRTs look like ****. Even the cheapest crappiest, headache causing, eye murdering CRT still had a truer refresh rate and a response time that was 1-2 magnitudes better. Despite the fact that some of them had such low quality phosphors that they would actually have phosphor decay for several milliseconds even flickering at refresh rates like 80-90Hz.
Refresh rate though is the best part of a CRT. Being able to see more complete frames or having a bigger divisor to divide larger and or smaller frame rates. Despite the fact the FW900 has a weaker ramdac compared to say it's younger cousin the GDM-F520 or some of the other aperture grille CRTs like the Nec diamondtrons. It more than makes up for it with it's image quality, despite having lesser refresh rate and being widescreen. FW900 1920x1080 100hz
Despite the fact that's a video and there's a limit to how much you can see. I can easily tell that monitor has some amazing colors through the video.
This is the big thread on the FW900
, there's even a post to modify the sharpness of the monitor using it's internal knobs
, seems dangerous though.
Unfortunately it's a CRT, which was discontinued over 6 or 7 years ago. Like many high-end CRTs no matter how careful you preserve them they are well aged and considering how much more a monitor is used compared to a CRT television. They just don't last as long as a CRT TV, if someone came out and said they are going to make brand new CRT monitor using the latest electronics and making it energy efficient and whatnot with better more modern parts, so many people would jump on buying one.
There are some people who took gaming so seriously on CRTs that literally it changed their vision on how they played games. I recall running into a number of CRT users who said when they played on LCDs it was a slide show literally. Some of these people were gaming on refresh rates as high as 200Hz, so what they saw was vastly different then an LCD user. So much so some quit gaming and some who didn't understand it was the CRT itself that helped them out, when they moved to LCD or their CRT died and they had no alternative.
Like Manyak has posted quite a few times the 3 most important peripherals are the monitor, mouse, and keyboard.