You can't piss your friend off by holding a hard drive magnet up to his LCD, leaving a big blob of discolored annoyance. That only works on CRT's.
Or are they not? Dish the dirt here.
Plasmas are pretty **** in fairness. Life expectancy isn't great.
Dunno 'bout that, they do seem to hold up reasonably well. They're not good for high pixel densities though, efficiency goes down the drain then. Not a bad option if you want a screen area as big as possible though.
Re: thread title, the good ol' plural still does not require an apostrophe. Those little buggers must be breeding like rabbits nowadays. (Could be worse though - the use of accents instead of an apostrophe where none belongs has spawned whole campaigns over here.)
Have there been many plasma computer monitors? (modern ones, not the ancient ones used in 80s flatscreens)
I'll post the same thing I posted in the other thread:
It's been argued to death enough. When LCD technology was new, it was horrible because like all new things, they need to mature to become viable. What was the first CRT? One of those black and white TVs from the 1900s? If you compare one of those 1900s CRTs to my current LG 24" 1080p LCD monitor, of course it will look horrible. But now, with how much LCD technology has advanced, the only real advantage that the best CRT has over the best LCD is the refresh rate, and even then LCDs are now moving into the 120Hz range because you have to keep in mind that it's still a new technology that has not had as much time as CRTs to develop.
Don't forget about plasma displays
http://cgi.ebay.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Flat-Widescreen-24-FD-Trinitron-CRT-Mon-/170486202736?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item27b1c50170
haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made. Those things were like $3k+ new
And if the backlight burns out, you can always replace it. If I had a crazy scientist's lab, I'd build a specialized long incadescent bulb for my thinkpad's LCD.
I had a Sony Trinitron and don't miss the eyestrain one bit. Just calibrate your LCD properly with a Xrite Eye-One and join the 21st century. My assumption is Microsoft Windows is B.C. but most of you are A.D.
CRTs have the edge in color reproduction, black levels (assuming it's not one of those FD Trinitrons with the G2 voltage way too high), refresh rates (being able to actually see a game run at 95-160 FPS is great, rather than being bottlenecked to 60 FPS because the monitor can't physically display anything faster), native resolution scaling (they don't HAVE a native resolution), viewing angles (important for TrackIR use or just showing other people what's on the screen), and price-to-performance (I got a Dell P1110 locally for $6, though I'd almost kill for one of the Sony GDM-FW900s or their ilk even at $50).
LCDs have the edge in not needing to fiddle so much with geometry and convergence (it's especially irritating to see colored edges because the convergence is off), size (don't need a deep desk), power consumption (though the gap supposedly isn't as large as it's made out to be), and for the rich artists, there's the Wacom Cintiq (whose digitizer technology simply cannot work with a CRT). Either refresh rate or color reproduction and viewing angles can approach high-end CRT levels of quality, but it will NOT come cheap.
I'm using the P1110 (21" FD Trinitron) for as long as I can at the moment. Works great most of the time, but it needs some color calibration and some hardware work to keep it from losing focus every now and then. Maybe when I can pinch enough pennies for something like the 3008WFP-HC (S-IPS or especially H-IPS, 2560x1600), I'll make the switch.
Oh, and I could use a Sony PVM for running most of my classic consoles in RGB-the way they were intended to be viewed. Too bad I can't seem to find any around here.
Hey, it's the Mini Me version of Microsoft Windows!Show Image(http://leadershipfreak.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/mini-me.jpg)
haha yeah you did, that's the best PC CRT ever made. Those things were like $3k+ new
Hello Mr. Ripmon. Who were you expecting, ch_123?
I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.
After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.
When it comes to high end displays, the only downfall I really see with LCDs is the fixed resolution, as already mentioned. Even then, the built in scalers are getting better and better. LCD TN panels are limited by their 6 bit color depth, but again the dithering used to make up for that deficiency have been getting better as well, to the point that I find them very usable for general usage.
I happen to be a fan of plasma TVs, having a Panasonic TH-50PZ80U at home. Being that they are phosphor based, like CRT, they have many of the same advantages. Being fixed pixel, they have many of the same advantages (and disadvantages) that LCDs have. And newer plasmas are hardly susceptible to screen burn anymore - I haven't seen even a hint of it on ours. Generally speaking, they're no more prone to image burn than CRT - as with CRT, some are better than others in this regard.
in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's. My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.
in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's. My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.
lol, me too. I've adjusted to IPS panels, but I just can't do TN panels for the life of me. When using a bigger screen the image is never uniform because even when sitting directly in front of it, the angle between your eyes and the edges differ enough to make it non-uniform.
I noticed this as well. There is no way to directly look at my 24" TN displaying a white screen and have the entire screen appear white. Parts appear bluish all the time.
I've noticed it too. It became especially obvious once I brought my eyes upon an HP TC1100 with a BOE Hydis panel and an iPad just how bad TN panels have it in regard to viewing angles.
Alas, the Gateway E-295C I'm using as a replacement for the TC1100 has an inferior TN panel-and since it's much larger at 14" 1280x768 vs. 10" 1024x768, the viewing angle issue is just that much worse. Same for the HP tm2 I'm dead set on getting down the road, except that's 12" 1280x800. And any convertibles with decent screens are usually more expensive and gimped with integrated graphics...
in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's. My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.
I think the radiation of the CRTs is the biggest disadvantage of them.
It's not just tablets, it's laptops in general. Not only do they always use some of the worst panels possible (with a few exceptions, like the Thinkpad W710's upgraded display), but they're GLOSSY. And do you know why? Because the glossy coating increases the perceived contrast, allowing them to get away with using crap panels without too many people noticing.
Until you go outdoors of course. Then you can't see a glossy screen at all.
Are you guys gonna walk around with CRTs attached to your laptops?
If you do it with an iPad be sure to post on YouTube.
lol, me too. I've adjusted to IPS panels, but I just can't do TN panels for the life of me. When using a bigger screen the image is never uniform because even when sitting directly in front of it, the angle between your eyes and the edges differ enough to make it non-uniform. And of course, there's the ... i forget the term for this ... but it's where all the dark colors kind of blend in together and lose contrast. And on some screens even the light colors do it too.
And with games, I still can't even do IPS.
I'm a fan of Plasma TVs too. The lifespan and burn-in problems have been pretty much done away with now. Yeah the old ones suck, but the new ones do match up to LCDs in those aspects - you only have to worry about image retention for the first month or so, after that you can even leave a game paused all day and it'll only take 2 mins for the retention to disappear. And of course, the picture quality is just plain awesome in comparison.
The only situations where LCDs are better than plasmas (for TVs of course) are 1) when all you want is a small screen for your kitchen or bathroom or whatever, and 2) when you're going to be watching it primarily when there's a lot of sunlight.
CRT TVs and monitors are two completely different ballgames. The sub-pixels on a CRT TV are arranged to give optimal quality to interlaced images, not progressive scan images. And only at 480i. If you wanted a 35" progressive scan CRT that could do 1080p, it would have to be about 10 feet deep. In other words, it would need a room on it's own.
In short: CRT TVs suck for anything except either watching old TV shows (like I Love Lucy) or playing old video games (who's graphics become better with interlacing).
Show me a 3840x2400 CRT in the 22.2" ballpark, and I'll admit that CRTs are NEARLY on a par with LCDs.
Oh, and that resolution and size was in 2001, so in the heyday of CRTs.
I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.
After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.
i'll say this for crt's, they wont freaking die.
Resolution means nothing when the colors are inaccurate.
Resolution means nothing when the colors are inaccurate.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Mercen_505
I love a good CRT, but finding one these days is a crap shoot.
After all those years of staring at CRTs, LCD monitors give me a significant amount of eye strain.
That's probably my issue too.
I reccomend a really matte and dark LCD screen to solve the problem for CRT-eyes. lol.
That could also be caused by the fluorescent backlights in LCD's (Which flicker at 60Hz).
CCFLs require an inverter to supply the 270 to 300 VAC @ 35KHz used by the CCFL tube.
Die Frequenz liegt im Bereich um 30 bis 100 kHz.
The frequency is in the range of 30 to 100 kHz.
Yeah, too bad the CRT colors fade so badly over the years, and years, and years......
Except this is an IPS panel. ;)
Oh, there is one advantage to CRTs. The Apple IIGS is designed around the quirks of a specific CRT, and its large dot pitch. Combined with the IIGS's dirty signal, LCDs don't play nicely, and even when they do play nicely, they don't look right (on the CRT, the colors are dithered in 640x200 mode. On an LCD, stripes are obvious.)
And CRTs can also lose focus as they age.
And CRTs can also lose focus as they age. LCDs can never do that.
(Also, the 8-bit Apple II used those NTSC composite tricks to generate color video, rather than doing it properly.)
much like grumpy old geekhackers.
Focus is easily adjustable when it goes out of whack.
Are you saying that we should whack MW?
Cheesecake > all.
Sure, it's adjustable, but sometimes the electron guns have decayed, and adjustment isn't enough.
You realize there are black forest cheesecakes?
BACK ON TOPIC!
True, you can probably make a better fish tank from a CRT than an LCD, but I bet I could make a better ant farm with an LCD! =D
I am still debating if I should actually contribute to this thread though. I would like to think I have some good practical info on the topic of monitors from a professional standpoint, but I also like cake... tough call here...
Show Image(http://glutenfreecookingschool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/gluten-free-red-velvet-cake.jpg)
I love a nice red velvet cake.
Partially due to my infatuation with the colour red though.
The sound of a CRT degaussing itself is... awesome :)
I'm always open to suggestions...Show Image(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4863272167_1ec9e0eddc_z.jpg)
I'm not THAT open to suggestions.
FU.Show Image(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4741185036_9dc2cae7ab_z.jpg)
Cheesecake > all.Show Image(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Carnegie_Deli_Strawberry_Cheesecake.jpg)
in ny people leave perfectly working CRT's on the sidewalk cuz no one wants them. Same with CRT tv's. My friend was trying to sell his 35" CRT tv on craigslist and finally dropped the price to FREE and still no one came.
Used to have a plasma TV and it used over 6x the power of these big CRTs and was burnt in with the piggin screen bugs the TV companies use within a year,
but that was a few years back, I would hope that was fixed now, but I've gone back to a CRT to watch TV thru as well.
Screen burn is not a problem with CRTs from the last 10 years.
New plasma TVs have that burn in problem practically fixed. I mean, my girlfriend once left the cable guide on it for a couple of hours by accident (like 5-6), and yeah it had some image retention afterwards but it still went away in just 5-10 mins of putting a regular channel on.
Yeah, they made them in red and orange.
IBM even sold some, including a dumb terminal and a couple of luggable PS/2s.
Show Image(http://www.corestore.org/3290-1.jpg)
<3
EverythingIBM would be drooling over that.
I thought you'd like the plasma display for your 5150 though.
I think it only supports colour 9-pin CRTs, unless I'm mistaken. I haven't looked up the specifications for that ISA card in awhile.
The 5160s are the ones that have the monochrome gfx cards: I'm selling them though. I really don't have a use for them... as I don't have the right equipment.
Maybe I shouldn't sell them now (As they can only increase in value), but we'll see. They can't sit in my closet forever.
Bigger problem would be that entire screen is actually a terminal lol.
5150 with colour, 5160s with monochrome? Someone's been doing hardware swapping I suspect?
As for value, it's kind of a funny thing. Those machines are worth literally nothing to many people. The people they mean something to are few and far between, and a good number of them are too far away to ship to (both in cost and because of the risk of hard drive death in transit).
Shame they never made a screen like that for a 31x1 terminal... you could hook it up to a PC with a serial cable and use a *nix shell on it.
If you're going to spend +$1000 on a display, why not get a projector?
*Hides behind chair*
If you're going to spend +$1000 on a display, why not get a projector?
*Hides behind chair*
Because front projectors need a good, dark room. If there's any ambient light in there, the image quality just goes down the gutter...if you can see anything.
Rear projectors, on the other hand...I haven't ruled them out, but mostly because they're the only way I can get a DLP-based display (three-chip, hopefully, because I cannot stand the rainbow effect of single-chip DLP with a color wheel) without running into that big issue with front projectors.
(I do have a rear projection display already, but it's CRT-based. Heavy as hell, has suffered from a bit of burn-in that looks jarring in 16:9, and worst of all, it loses convergence all the damn time. I don't know if all rear-projection CRTs are like that, but it sure makes me favor direct-view aperture grille ones when given the choice, size be damned.)
...Oh crap, I just remembered about the high bulb prices as well, as if the projectors themselves weren't expensive enough.
don't really care of the crt/lcd debate, i choose lcd cuz well i wall mount everything, and it took almost 10 years for crappy lcds to almost come to the quality of basic crts... but
spathi?
(And recruiting Fwiffo and his Eluder in the beginning makes the early game much, MUCH easier, though battles can be tedious with the way I fly them.)
don't really care of the crt/lcd debate, i choose lcd cuz well i wall mount everything, and it took almost 10 years for crappy lcds to almost come to the quality of basic crts... but
spathi?
What surprises me is that people don't use a combo of both LCD and CRT. I think that's the best way to go.
What surprises me is that people don't use a combo of both LCD and CRT. I think that's the best way to go.
What surprises me is that people don't use a combo of both LCD and CRT. I think that's the best way to go.
I have a 24" LCD for modern game consoles and general computer use. I use a Sony GDM-FW900 CRT for photo editing and anything that might require over 60Hz for some reason.
For old-school games I keep around a 20" Toshiba SDTV CRT with YPbPr inputs; gotta have a low-res SDTV for 240p systems like SNES.
Honestly I hate CRTs... they're cumbersome and take up too much space. But I already have them and nothing else does the job better (yet).
how so and why?
My brother in law's 150 lb Sony Trinitron TV just died.
Anybody want it?
Or know how to get rid of it?
I would, but I can't afford a Wacom Cintiq. (I'd most likely have it right below my main monitor-likely the Sun GDM-5410 mentioned earlier-where it's easy to write and draw on. It would also make a great auxiliary monitor for MFDs and such when gaming.)
Oh, you lucky bastard. I haven't so much as seen an FW900/FD Trinitron G1W in person, much less had the chance to buy one.
As for CRTs, I use them because they're what currently fit my wants and needs best. Once something shows up that preserves a good CRT's advantages while getting rid of the disadvantages, I'll switch. (Three-chip Laser DLP, perhaps? Not that I'll ever see that in a computer monitor...)
I have a 24" LCD for modern game consoles and general computer use. I use a Sony GDM-FW900 CRT for photo editing and anything that might require over 60Hz for some reason.
For old-school games I keep around a 20" Toshiba SDTV CRT with YPbPr inputs; gotta have a low-res SDTV for 240p systems like SNES.
Honestly I hate CRTs... they're cumbersome and take up too much space. But I already have them and nothing else does the job better (yet).
My brother in law's 150 lb Sony Trinitron TV just died.
Anybody want it?
Or know how to get rid of it?
I actually do run a combo.
My employer gave me the choice between two 19" 1280x1024 LCDs, two of any CRT they had, or a combo.
One LCD in vertical orientation for displaying the break/fix ticket queue, one 17" Trinitron running at 1600x1200 for everything else. (I wanted bigger with more resolution, but that's all I could get that worked.)
one 17" Trinitron running at 1600x1200 for everything else. (I wanted bigger with more resolution, but that's all I could get that worked.)
I'm sure you could buy a standard LCD that's 20" with a fairly high res, AND also use CRTs as well.
There will probably be nothing that will be able to do a better job for older games (something that can surpass CRTs? yes. But allow compatibility for legacy stuff? no). Especially because new HD TVs don't take NES consoles into consideration!
Unfortunately, my income isn't exactly regular or consistent, and probably won't be for the time I'm in college/university.
Furthermore, if it's an LCD, I expect it to be a Hydis or IPS panel of some sort. I've been rather spoiled and can't go back to TN now. (I only put up with TN in my current notebook because of the specs it got me for $550 and because I didn't know the screen type used...and I may have to put up with TN again in my next one if it's still the only convertible with dedicated graphics and within my budget.)
I could probably afford a 24" IPS panel (maybe even a 30" 2560x1600 one used) if I started pawning off all my gaming-related stuff, but I don't want to do that.
By the way, does anyone know if storing a CRT in non-climate controlled room is bad for it (100F/37C in summer, below 0C in winter)?
if you really like vertical goodness, i'd suggest a monitor arm. i personally have 2 ergotron wall mounted and they move as smooth as butter and do swivel to portrait when i feel like. (i change my monitor area every day to suit what i feel like). Think of it less like an airplane food tray and more like a robot assembly line arm in terms of fluid of motion.
Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to bring hardware in and attach it to the network (or anything that is attached to the network.) I'm on a crappy rubber dome, too. :(
And, besides, my work machine is an OptiPlex GX620 with integrated graphics. Pretty sure it'd take one look at the T221 and crap itself in fear at pushing that many pixels. :P
Oh, and everyone there knows of the T221.
Unfortunately, my income isn't exactly regular or consistent, and probably won't be for the time I'm in college/university.
Furthermore, if it's an LCD, I expect it to be a Hydis or IPS panel of some sort. I've been rather spoiled and can't go back to TN now. (I only put up with TN in my current notebook because of the specs it got me for $550 and because I didn't know the screen type used...and I may have to put up with TN again in my next one if it's still the only convertible with dedicated graphics and within my budget.)
I could probably afford a 24" IPS panel (maybe even a 30" 2560x1600 one used) if I started pawning off all my gaming-related stuff, but I don't want to do that.
Gosh...I've found text on 1600x1200's a little small on my 21" IBM monitor (Which runs that resolution at 100Hz).
I'm sure they'll exceed $80 (as that's the price for both shipping and the monitor itself). Plus I'd have to buy another LCD anyways. Not to mention, that monitor will just be so easy to setup and have everything right out of the box. I also plan to sit it on my desk beside beside my current LCD: having a wall mount wouldn't be ideal in such a situation.
Only if you really want a monitor arm you can shop for deals on ebay, all my ergotron wall mount and desk mount(i deskmount 2 ergotrons for the fiance) have been around 60ish (i look for freeshipping too as sometimes they charge like 20-25bucks for shipping, 8bucks is ok and fair).
i dont' love ergotron, and there are plenty of other monitor arm manufacturers that are cheaper, i've just have experience w/ them and don't want to use anything else.
sent my fiance to cancun w/ her girlfriends so she has the nice camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1leKAi-LRQ
i don't think i can explain how adjustable of a work area it is, and can only show it.
did anyone mention power draw? i have 31w coming from my 22's (lcd) and 01 idle.
They stay around because they weigh so much.
Finally got rid of my brother in law's TV. Cost him $50 to have two guys haul that monster to the dump.
i have realised the cheap ips panels are not comparable to the top lacie or eizo,duh. actually they are hardly better than tn. i am talking about the sub $300usd 23"+ ones.
It's a lot easier to find an IPS than you think for cheap (you just have to look, the internet is huge).Normally, I would have questioned that, but then I saw a listing in the local craigslist for a Dell 2005FPW for $100.
No joke. I have a Dell 21" Trinitron in my closet. It's still there, because I am dreading the day I decide to get rid of it.Let me guess: P1110 or P1130.
Trying to figure out the Sun GDM-5410's reluctance to have higher refresh rates forced led me to the Device Manager, which recognized it as...a generic VGA monitor.
Usually a very crappy profile. Calibrate your LCD and it'll beat the CRT.
Plus if you have sensitive hearing those CRTs are noisy.
Usually a very crappy profile. Calibrate your LCD and it'll beat the CRT.
If you disable the "Use refresh rates approved for this monitor" in Display Properties you can set the rate to whatever you want. And if the monitor doesn't like it, just wait 10 seconds and let it revert.
CRT's also have much better color depth. Compare a solid black image on a CRT to an LCD and you'll see the difference.
So if there wasn't the issue of a backlight, LCDs would have a much more blacker black.
figured i'd mention. nf and fd crt's are not completely flat. they played some tricks to make it look that way. if you sit in front of one for a bit you will notice a slight curvature on either. the crt in the gdm-400ps is probably just as flat as a fd. it is just curved on the outside of the glass rather than inside of it. this is one advantage i can think of with lcd's. they are flat. more real estate. plus no geometry issues or screen sizing. so those are some plusses of lcd's. i still maintain that high end crt's have better color rendering. especially black.
it seems odd then being that a lacie can display many more colors than a crt. untill you read my other post where i state a human cannot see many of those colors. the lower end ips panels have worse color gamut than the best crt's.
i think this will all change soon though. in a year or so i am guessing there will be lcd's for less than $500 that wipe the floor with crt's. thats my guess, time will tell.
then a question: if lacie uses the same panel as a cheap dell or hp how come the lacie has much better specs on paper? namely the color gamut. i know i just mentioned it did not matter but i am wondering how they have different specs on the same panel. different model of panel from the same manufacturer? if that is the case that is like comparing a c class benz to a s class.
then a question: if lacie uses the same panel as a cheap dell or hp how come the lacie has much better specs on paper? namely the color gamut. i know i just mentioned it did not matter but i am wondering how they have different specs on the same panel. different model of panel from the same manufacturer? if that is the case that is like comparing a c class benz to a s class.
On The Guild (skip to 1:47, season 4, Ep 1 (http://www.watchtheguild.com/) the bald guy uses a CRT with headphones held together with duct tape.
His name is Vork. You may recognize him from this awesome commercialShow Image(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wow.com/media/2009/01/vorkunderwear.jpg)
So do some of the other Guild characters...Show Image(http://www.armchairempire.com/images/miscellaneous/the-guild/the-guild-2.jpg)
Like CRTs, I respect other people lifestyle choices.Show Image(http://www.ifgs.org/images/content/larp_1.jpg)
That's actually one thing that bothered me about warcraft 3 -- some of the characters are so inappropriately dressed for warfare..
Do tell me, good sir - what is the 'realistic' load-out for an Orcish grunt?
You're playing a game with night elves in it, and you're concerned by how 'unrealistic' their armor is?!
Just assume that it's magic. Y'know, that stuff that explains most things away in fantasy stories.
...but skimpy clothes seems to be a common malady in fiction or non-fiction.
Just so you know, CRTs pretty much all have a roughly 20 year lifespan - more if they're not used much (but even 30 years is still pushing it,) less if they're used heavily.
back on topic for a moment?
lacie says nothing about their backlighting afaik. in fact the dreamcolor is better imo. it's less money too. i think even these offerings cannot completely eclipse a fw900 or c520.
yes, soon they will be better but not at the moment. i am speaking solely of color rendering. the cheap ips panels are as stated 8 bit. the lacies are 10 or 12. the dreamcolor is 30! it still cannot match the gdm crt's. plus as i stated they must use different shutters, they are probably led backlit and not sidelit. the panel may be different like a cpd crt vs. a gdm crt. the other problem is the specs get better as the displays get larger. 16:10 is stupid for almost anything that has to do with the internet.
when they get me a 20" 4:3 lcd with at least 125% ntsc. i will take it. even if it is expensive. the fact is that is not going to happen. simply because they are not going to make a 20" 4:3 display ever again most likely.
meanwhile i am much happier with crt's. which if need be i could probably have for the rest of my life for free! there are millions of good or repairable crt's to be found. unless they destroy them there will be working crt's in 2050 or beyond. i hope by then lcd's or whatever technology exists will be much better than crt's were. of course they will be 200" and then weigh more than the crt's did!
besides guys, look what you were just discussing and many of you have model m's and f;s to boot. i can't imagine how some of you cannot embrace crt's for all their glory. the grade 1 crt's are/were the model m's of the display world. oh, i see brand new in box fw900's for 2 grand. i'd rather spend it on that than on the dreamcolor at this point but that's just me. anyhow i don't have to, i can get gdm crt's for free or a $40 "thank you" all day long! basements,landfills,closets etc. are full of them. they were so stinking robust most of them are in a+ condition even if theya re sitting in a landfill. they are like roaches, they will be around forever. no, i do not go through dumps but i am good friends with the trash driver. a good friend to have indeed!
now as for the lcd, i do have a few at home and my cats and dogs mostly had them for lunch. they use the crt's as a chair but have yet to cause any damage whatsoever. really my investing in a $6,000 lcd would be an exercise in futility then. crt's for the win!
In the case of Trinitrons, they've got issues with their brightness limiter circuits that give them a 10 year or so lifespan before that dies suddenly and completely.
Or you get a terrible picture from the guns degrading.
Or the phosphor degrading.
Or the circuitry controlling things degrading.
(The last three bits apply to any CRT.)
AppleColor RGBs are dying en masse because of tubes wearing out - the electronics killed a bunch in the first few years, and then the tubes are killing them now.
I'd turn that working one off and save it.
In 50 years you can be on Antiques Roadshow.
"Sir, this Lion is worthless. But your HHKB is a NATIONAL TREASURE!"Show Image(http://quixotictimes.com/images/antiqueroadshowclown.jpeg)
I'm surprised he's not yelling about how his left hand is in extreme pain.
Now to get those iMac G3s and powerbook....
The saying goes, "It takes only one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch."
the top left corner is just a little fuzzy, otherwise the picture makes me drool.
haha. not for that. i meant the picture quality is so good it makes me drool. not the actual image being displayed. that is g rated. seriously.
now i have a serious question please. my cats mean a lot to me. they take turns snuggling ontop of crt's for hours. cam this actually impact their health? i know more radiation is out the bac and a cat is very small. i never thought of this. i don't lnow if it is enough to harm them. either short term or long term. would you keep them off of there?
please don't guess at this question hopefully someone actually knows. all i'd have to do is put some double sided tape on it and they would not go there anymore of course. if it is safe for them then so be it. cats do like warm spots.
again, sorry about this darn das pooping out on me.
haha. not for that. i meant the picture quality is so good it makes me drool. not the actual image being displayed. that is g rated. seriously.
now i have a serious question please. my cats mean a lot to me. they take turns snuggling ontop of crt's for hours. cam this actually impact their health? i know more radiation is out the bac and a cat is very small. i never thought of this. i don't lnow if it is enough to harm them. either short term or long term. would you keep them off of there?
please don't guess at this question hopefully someone actually knows. all i'd have to do is put some double sided tape on it and they would not go there anymore of course. if it is safe for them then so be it. cats do like warm spots.
again, sorry about this darn das pooping out on me.
And then, by some miracle, the same settings that worked on the P1110 now worked on the GDM-5410. Finally got my 1600x1200 at 95 Hz back!
)
New HP 30 inch panel (http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-4194577.html) gets a Maximum PC kickass award.
*ZR30w pic truncated*
Toss that CRT!
I think the main appeal of the FW900/FD Trinitron G1W is that it's widescreen. I've never seen a widescreen Diamondtron NF.
That said, I'm feeling quite envious right about now. I've never found an FW900 locally, much less for just the cost of transportation. My P1110 cost me $6 and my GDM-5410 $10, yet some get their FW900s for free...and if I don't find one locally, the shipping on those things is going to hurt the wallet quite a lot (let alone my back when they arrive)!
i am thinking maybe i should pass up this once in a lifetime opportunity. the thing is i really only like 4:3, wide screen is not an attraction to me. which is the main attraction of the fw900 as pfg said. the problem is that to many sonys had issues out of the box. i had a 400ps and f500 that were doa. the 400ps was doa 3 times! i am not bashing sony just stating facts. it might be time to throw in the towel and get a lcd i am not sure. meanwhile this diamondtron is fine for me. i don't need to push the envelope and ask for trouble. the trouble would come in the form of me ending up in the hospital! i just called a mover i have used several times and they don't want to mess with a one item job. we are talking about carrying this thing several hundred feet where it is located then through my house and up the stairs. that might very well be why it is still new in box! they couldn't even manage to uncrate it possibly lol.
anyhow the f400 actually has much better specs than the fw900 and it is the 4:3 i prefer. only 19" but may have close to the same real estae as the fw900 being 4:3. i'd just assume keep the diamondpro. i like the diamondtron better even though most people like the sony better. i wonder about samsungs flat shadowmask. i always thought ag was a big improvement on shadowmask but apparently samsung had something there. i might as well quit while i am ahead. collecting keyboards is not akin to collecting crt's. namely in respect for ones back!
i have carried a 21" crt which was hard but i managed. the fw900's box is a joke. i might as well lift a piano. if i can't find a helper for a reasonable fee i am not going to risk it.
it has been sitting there since 2003 so i probably have time to figure this out.
there is a 20" 4:3 s-ips but the price is stupid since a 23" 16:10 ips is a lot less money with comparable specs. what upsets me is the displays with huge color gamut are all 26"+ 16:9-10 i don't have room for that where i want to put it.
for now there really is nothing wrong with the diamondpro 900u. it is a very nice crt. plus it was free. i had to repair it but that is not a problem for me. i sort of think a crt over 20" is too big and a lcd/plasma over 23" is too big. at least for me.
the thing is if you get a 30" lcd you cannot sit 10" from it and expect good results.
i prefer to sit less than a foot away from my computer display. right now i don't know if the radiation is helping me but i am bald anyways.
Sitting that close to your computer won't help your eyes either.
well i was able to see the fw900 in action. then i saw a lacie electron blue iv sitting there.
ah i just like the mitsu tube better and i did not break my back. i would have liked the fw900 for bragging rights but in the end i am satisfied. i read many people thought lacies $5,000 lcd cooked this crt. well this was free so i am not exactly feeling sorry. i am almost positive that a sub $1,000usd lcd cannot compete with this. it looks very nice to me. i like the rgb adjustment which the other mitsu based monitors lack. even though i should not have to use that feature.
i personally don't know why people find the fw900 to be the best crt picture. it don't think it is. yes, it's big and widescreen but all the features on that tube end in .23-.27 dot pitch. the north american mitsu is .24 throughout. it just looks sharper and has more "pop" to me. not the sony pop issue mind you :)
one issue. the top left corner seems to be doing the shimmy. i have no magnets nearby. i have a very good understanding of electronics and don't see anyway to fix that. on the other hand it is very possibly me and not the monitor. i have poor eyesite,my glasses don't jive with bright screens and i am sitting way too close.
i had to crank the corner purity on that corner to even get it decent. this is usually a magnetisim issue. i really don't want to degause it 50 times. great way to burn out the coil before i even get started. this monitor was in use but i can tell it has not seen many hours.
if it is the monitor perhaps, does anyone here know what the issue might be and a fix?
i am thinking maybe i should pass up this once in a lifetime opportunity. the thing is i really only like 4:3, wide screen is not an attraction to me. which is the main attraction of the fw900 as pfg said. the problem is that to many sonys had issues out of the box. i had a 400ps and f500 that were doa. the 400ps was doa 3 times! i am not bashing sony just stating facts. it might be time to throw in the towel and get a lcd i am not sure. meanwhile this diamondtron is fine for me. i don't need to push the envelope and ask for trouble. the trouble would come in the form of me ending up in the hospital! i just called a mover i have used several times and they don't want to mess with a one item job. we are talking about carrying this thing several hundred feet where it is located then through my house and up the stairs. that might very well be why it is still new in box! they couldn't even manage to uncrate it possibly lol.
anyhow the f400 actually has much better specs than the fw900 and it is the 4:3 i prefer. only 19" but may have close to the same real estae as the fw900 being 4:3. i'd just assume keep the diamondpro. i like the diamondtron better even though most people like the sony better. i wonder about samsungs flat shadowmask. i always thought ag was a big improvement on shadowmask but apparently samsung had something there. i might as well quit while i am ahead. collecting keyboards is not akin to collecting crt's. namely in respect for ones back!
I haven't really been much of a fan of wide-screen either. I like having one window open at a time, and when you're using a computer like that, 3:4 is the best choice.
I always hated that faint damper line in the Sony Trinitrons.
Still not sure why this post title is CRTs are better than LCD's when they clearly aren't. Should of been a poll. I like well constructed polls.
Sounds about right.
I've always assumed all the Vintage Computing guys were one person talking to himself.
You must be the king of uni-tasking :D
No wonder you spend so much time posting!
MW's sig reminds me. Whatever happened to Gr1m? That dude was Grim.
I always hated that faint damper line in the Sony Trinitrons.
Still not sure why this post title is CRTs are better than LCD's when they clearly aren't. Should of been a poll. I like well constructed polls.
I already made a poll Ripmon:
http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?t=10782 (http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?t=10782)
LCD widescreen won (LCD fullscreen and CRT fullscreen were basically on par). Only one person voted for CRT widescreen.
i had to type on a rubber dome today. that sucked.
anyhow, there is a s-ips lg l2000cp-bf for 50 bucks(used). there is still nothing about this thing anywhere. i guess i will have to just go see what the picture looks like. i would like a lcd but it seems you have to spend 5 grand to beat the free crt's. honestly i feel kind of stupid running an i7 with a crt. if one thing holds true it is that i am a miser. i pickup where other people left off and i have never minded.
meanwhile, this latest crt looks wonderful to me. i have software brightness pretty high and i am using the blank screensaver with no eco. so, i figure i will be looking for something new in a couple of months lol.
Don't use analog with an LCD if you can avoid it.
in some ways i still prefer crt's. i think it is the backlighting that bothers me on any lcd.
30 lbs. I could lift it with my penis.
$5000 LCD versus $5 CRT...I'll take the CRT.
$5000 LCD versus $5 CRT...I'll take the CRT.
Did the CRT originally cost $5?
FD Trinitron G1-based monitors like the Dell P1110 and Sun GDM-5410 cost at least $1,000 new.
At that price, I certainly wouldn't be owning any.
FD Trinitron G1-based monitors like the Dell P1110 and Sun GDM-5410 cost at least $1,000 new.
At that price, I certainly wouldn't be owning any.
I have a Sony GDM-F520. Sadly in need of fixing, but I will, and it will be worth it. Cost about £750 back in 2002 (well over $1000). But look around - how much does it cost now to get 1440 vertical pixels in a premium LCD? More, much more.
Ah, VERTICAL pixels. The one thing LCD manufacturers seem to cut in their quest to go widescreen, much to my irritation.
I wouldn't be bothered much if they just added to the horizontal resolution, but when we get things like only 1080 pixels rather than 1200 pixels vertical, I almost want to reach out and slap whoever thought that was a good idea.
May I inquire as to why?
I know a lot of people who just use VGA for everything.
I'm going to start using DVI for some of my monitors once I get some cables.
Well I'm back on a CRT. To be exact, a 17" NEC MultiSync FE700+ that we bought in 2002 that hasn't seen regular use since about 2005 or 2006, when it was replaced by a 19" TN on the main computer. The secondary computer, the one I use, has had a 14" Panasonic TN from 1998 or 1999 hooked up to it. Simply, I was sick of the horrible viewing angles from such an early LCD, so I tried the CRT at first, but the flicker was painful even at 85Hz. So back to the LCD. However, in another thread, someone mentioned that apparent flicker can be reduced by turning down the brightness. So I did just that, and now the CRT is tolerable.
Thoughts:
-Blacks are fantastic(+) Unfortunately, I'm sacrificing whites to get this(-),due to reduced brightness in order to combat flickering)
-Because of above, gamma is way off(-), though my previous monitor's gamma was also somewhat off.
-Awesome viewing angles(+)
-More vivid colors (at least partially due to glossy display) (+)
-Slightly bigger display(+)
-Moderately increased eyestrain(big -)
-Takes up significantly more room on desk (-)
-Increased power consumption(-)
-Cool sound when turned on (+)
-Satisfying mechanical switch on the power button, with plenty of throw (+)
Overall, it's a tradeoff against my 14" Panasonic from 1998. However, compared to the 19" LCD downstairs (probably TN, circa. 2005), it loses significantly. Viewing angles on the LCD are worse than the CRT but still acceptable, Gamma is actually reasonably good, the colors are acceptable, It sucks less power, gives me better resolution (1280 x 1024, vs. 1024 x 768), and most importantly, it doesn't give me as much eye strain. It's also a bigger display and takes up much less space. I don't game so loss of refresh rate is not a big deal. So if I had the money to buy a modern LCD for the secondary computer, I'd definitely use it instead of this CRT.
Granted, I'm just an ordinary user and I don't do heavy graphics work. However, I believe the comparisons are fair. (1998 early LCD vs 2002 consumer CRT vs 2005 consumer LCD)
That's nothing. I was looking at archived IBM websites yesterday, and was thinking "They sold standard CRTs for how much?"
Why do people always complain about flicker? Seriously?
Flicker only bothered me on really cheap low-brand CRTs; but that's not relevant as no one here is using cheap CRTs.
I run ALL of my CRTs in 60Hz. Anything *other* than 60Hz hurts my eyes or looks funny. Whenever I see CRTs running in 85Hz, I can usually tell as the faster refresh rate is noticeable... it looks kind of, like mist or fog racing really fast. I can't describe it in any other way than that. It has a "softer" look to it; not as sharp.
120Hz is fast enough that it looks like 60Hz to me.
Oh and a standard IBM L190 LCD looks just fine. I love the colour on it. Granted the blacks aren't as good, but even CRTs use little tricks to get around this.
For example, my G70 when presented with a very bright white screen will automatically make the screen darker -- then when the screen becomes more dark, the CRT bumps up the brightness again. This is the only way to "equalize" brightness.
EDIT: the G70 is a trinitron tube: so anyone badmouthing the G70 obviously never used one. It's a *very* good monitor.
now that i have lived with a ultra high end lcd for some months my initial impressions still hold true for me. the lcd walks all over any of the best crt's ever made. of course i would not game on this. it has like 50ms lag. it is for looking at still pictures. it does do video fine though it just is not very large. also you have to factor in free vs. 6 grand.
of course one day this will be free as well :)
Why do people always complain about flicker? Seriously?
Flicker only bothered me on really cheap low-brand CRTs; but that's not relevant as no one here is using cheap CRTs.
I run ALL of my CRTs in 60Hz. Anything *other* than 60Hz hurts my eyes or looks funny. Whenever I see CRTs running in 85Hz, I can usually tell as the faster refresh rate is noticeable... it looks kind of, like mist or fog racing really fast. I can't describe it in any other way than that. It has a "softer" look to it; not as sharp.
...PS- OLED tech is rapidly maturing! Nostalgics will soon be hearkening back to the LCDs natural looking output and tasteful fluorescent backlighting.
No they won't...and you can pry my Sony GDM-F520 CRT from my cold...well, from my hands...with an OLED....
CRTs are meant for Windows 98
CRT for the hz, and LCD for the clarity
I use LCDs, but I wish they would have gone FED or LED back then...
LCDs are great for mobile devices (watches, cameras, cellphones, etc.) but not that much for large monitors (PC/TV).
They might deliver high resolution (and sharpness), brightness, and by now also decent color accuracy and contrast, but...
None of the LCD monitors I used (Dell, Samsung, Eizo, NEC...) was able to deliver equal brightness across the screen, none!
It's a construction flaw, it's the need for backlighting as it's kinda impossible to spread the light evenly at such close distance...
The only displays combining both (sharpness/brightness/color/contrast AND evenly brightness) are OLED or LED (LED only, no LCD) based >.>
I use LCDs, but I wish they would have gone FED or LED back then...
LCDs are great for mobile devices (watches, cameras, cellphones, etc.) but not that much for large monitors (PC/TV).
They might deliver high resolution (and sharpness), brightness, and by now also decent color accuracy and contrast, but...
None of the LCD monitors I used (Dell, Samsung, Eizo, NEC...) was able to deliver equal brightness across the screen, none!
It's a construction flaw, it's the need for backlighting as it's kinda impossible to spread the light evenly at such close distance...
The only displays combining both (sharpness/brightness/color/contrast AND evenly brightness) are OLED or LED (LED only, no LCD) based >.>
I wonder what would happen if they made an LCD display which wasn't constrained by "marketing thin"... say it had a "backlight diffuser box" 10cm thick between the backlight and the actual panel... it might provide more uniform backlighting by allowing any irregularities to be washed away.
I still have my fw900. I haven't used it in 2 years.
It had nice color.
I use LCDs, but I wish they would have gone FED or LED back then...
LCDs are great for mobile devices (watches, cameras, cellphones, etc.) but not that much for large monitors (PC/TV).
They might deliver high resolution (and sharpness), brightness, and by now also decent color accuracy and contrast, but...
None of the LCD monitors I used (Dell, Samsung, Eizo, NEC...) was able to deliver equal brightness across the screen, none!
It's a construction flaw, it's the need for backlighting as it's kinda impossible to spread the light evenly at such close distance...
The only displays combining both (sharpness/brightness/color/contrast AND evenly brightness) are OLED or LED (LED only, no LCD) based >.>
I wonder what would happen if they made an LCD display which wasn't constrained by "marketing thin"... say it had a "backlight diffuser box" 10cm thick between the backlight and the actual panel... it might provide more uniform backlighting by allowing any irregularities to be washed away.
LCD has brighter and deeper "reds"
But that's really the only advantage.. Everything else is better on CRT.
We're very close to making an LCD that's AS GOOD as a CRT though.
All they would need is a SUPER BRIGHT backlit system to compensate for dimness of ULMB.. which is really just a matter of COST..
LCD has brighter and deeper "reds"
But that's really the only advantage.. Everything else is better on CRT.
We're very close to making an LCD that's AS GOOD as a CRT though.
All they would need is a SUPER BRIGHT backlit system to compensate for dimness of ULMB.. which is really just a matter of COST..
REDS ARE NOT DEEPER OR BRIGHTER ON LCD'S. THEY'RE INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY!
LCD has brighter and deeper "reds"
But that's really the only advantage.. Everything else is better on CRT.
We're very close to making an LCD that's AS GOOD as a CRT though.
All they would need is a SUPER BRIGHT backlit system to compensate for dimness of ULMB.. which is really just a matter of COST..
REDS ARE NOT DEEPER OR BRIGHTER ON LCD'S. THEY'RE INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY!
They absolutely are...
Reds on CRT look more brownish..
Whereas on LCD, they're fire-engine red.
I've tested this on numerous crts, from Old cheapos to fw900
I'm a die-hard user of CRTs. I still have several 20" CRTs that I got for free or were being thrown away in addition to the several I bought back in the day.
There's just no display that does 2048x1536 so clear for so less money. I bought a $2200 22" LaCie professional CRT display for $100 about 10 years back when one of my Eizo 20" started having a capcitor problem. (I have a whole crop of 17" and 20" Eizos that have done this. I'll get them all fixed one day.)
Professional level CRTs are superior for everything except for desk space and weight--and the only people that will worry about that are the same people that are worried about their mouse and computer looking 'pretty' and keeping up with the latest iphone trend...
They are inferior when it comes to Fire-Engine Red..On most CRTs, probably. On a properly calibrated professional level CRT, I think it would be like splitting hairs.
LCD does it better because there is no green shift which makes all red, slightly brown.
I'm a die-hard user of CRTs. I still have several 20" CRTs that I got for free or were being thrown away in addition to the several I bought back in the day.
There's just no display that does 2048x1536 so clear for so less money. I bought a $2200 22" LaCie professional CRT display for $100 about 10 years back when one of my Eizo 20" started having a capcitor problem. (I have a whole crop of 17" and 20" Eizos that have done this. I'll get them all fixed one day.)
Professional level CRTs are superior for everything except for desk space and weight--and the only people that will worry about that are the same people that are worried about their mouse and computer looking 'pretty' and keeping up with the latest iphone trend...
Or people who are worried with power consumption..Surprisingly, that's a myth. LCDs can take up just as much power as a CRT. Learned that when we were looking at flat panels to upgrade crts in one of our hotels.
Or people who are worried with power consumption..Surprisingly, that's a myth. LCDs can take up just as much power as an LCD. Learned that when we were looking at flat panels to upgrade crts in one of our hotels.
The power spec quoted there was from an article back in 2010. That's when the high-res lcds that did anything like 2048x1536 didn't even exist. It only follows logic that if you increase the pixel density, power consumption will increase. And I've seen it first hand on modern spec sheets.Or people who are worried with power consumption..Surprisingly, that's a myth. LCDs can take up just as much power as an LCD. Learned that when we were looking at flat panels to upgrade crts in one of our hotels.
No way in a size to size comparison..sorry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_Plasma,_and_OLED (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_Plasma,_and_OLED)
There's no need to argue, CRTs are not coming back
I'm just hoping they bring back laservue..
There's no need to argue, CRTs are not coming back
I'm just hoping they bring back laservue..
CRT's are coming back. You just need to get with the times and accept change.
CRT's are coming back. You just need to get with the times and accept change.I can see this happening sometime in the far future. Tesla made an electric car decades ago, bell bottoms were all the rage in the 1970s, 'aviator' sunglasses were normal in the 80s, and IBM Ms rules computing in the 80s.
2016...
Anybody still with CRTs?
I wish I have a 2K+ one, but MultiSync and able to accept weird under 15K syncs (arcade, computer, whatever put at it).
2016...
Anybody still with CRTs?
I wish I have a 2K+ one, but MultiSync and able to accept weird under 15K syncs (arcade, computer, whatever put at it).
Every self-respecting retro gamer has a quality CRT.
Also, I think some people in photo/video editing still use them.
I work in professional video. Years ago we had HD Trinitron CRTs at my office. These things were BEAUTIFUL, but my god were they big. The sets were around 40", 16x9, and they weighed somewhere in the area of 250lbs. Not really for moving around the room. We basically dropped them for two reasons, 1 no one uses CRTs any more so it was no longer a good reference for what people were using, and 2 the manufacturers no longer supported the products for replacement parts. We transitioned to prolevel LCD monitors, which are fine but lack the rich blacks and wide viewing angles of the CRTs.
OLED, though, is a great format. I can't speak directly to response rate, but the color reproduction on them can be absolutely fantastic. The rich shadows; often times resolving more detail than what you would see in a plasma or lcd display. Very wide viewing angles, too. The prices have been coming down, so hopefully it gets more popular.
I work in professional video. Years ago we had HD Trinitron CRTs at my office. These things were BEAUTIFUL, but my god were they big. The sets were around 40", 16x9, and they weighed somewhere in the area of 250lbs. Not really for moving around the room. We basically dropped them for two reasons, 1 no one uses CRTs any more so it was no longer a good reference for what people were using, and 2 the manufacturers no longer supported the products for replacement parts. We transitioned to prolevel LCD monitors, which are fine but lack the rich blacks and wide viewing angles of the CRTs.
OLED, though, is a great format. I can't speak directly to response rate, but the color reproduction on them can be absolutely fantastic. The rich shadows; often times resolving more detail than what you would see in a plasma or lcd display. Very wide viewing angles, too. The prices have been coming down, so hopefully it gets more popular.
OLED is no good for video at the moment.
It's not bright enough to be pulsed for blank frames during color transition.
This is going to take them years and years and years ..
Meanwhile, Regular LCDs has the problem completely licked because you can pulse a backlight easily,....
The only hindrance at this point is cost.. to build back lighting systems that can sustain such abuse.
OLED is no good for video at the moment.
It's not bright enough to be pulsed for blank frames during color transition.
This is going to take them years and years and years ..
Meanwhile, Regular LCDs has the problem completely licked because you can pulse a backlight easily,....
The only hindrance at this point is cost.. to build back lighting systems that can sustain such abuse.
This is the first time I'm hearing this. There's quite a few professional OLED monitors on the market. I personally have worked on a Sony Trimaster panel for the past year and a half or so. Since making the change, I can't see myself going back to an LCD Panel.
OLED is no good for video at the moment.
It's not bright enough to be pulsed for blank frames during color transition.
This is going to take them years and years and years ..
Meanwhile, Regular LCDs has the problem completely licked because you can pulse a backlight easily,....
The only hindrance at this point is cost.. to build back lighting systems that can sustain such abuse.
This is the first time I'm hearing this. There's quite a few professional OLED monitors on the market. I personally have worked on a Sony Trimaster panel for the past year and a half or so. Since making the change, I can't see myself going back to an LCD Panel.
Professional yea, but still not good for motion video.
The reason is, Oled doesn't produce alot of light. so if they blinked it during pixel transitions, the panel would be way too dark..
The reason blinking is necessary is because during the transition that pixel is the WRONG color.
So, that's what motion blur and lcd ghosting come from.. these two anomalies are different visually, but they occur for the same reason.
Do you have any literature you can link me to that references this problem? I can't find anything via my own web searching.
Do you have any literature you can link me to that references this problem? I can't find anything via my own web searching.
Do you play computer games at all?
hahaha.. I'm surprised you're not familiar with this being a geekhack member.
The feature is called ULMB
Check out blurbuster for info.
But very basically, when you turn off the backlight on an LCD, it goes dark, the pixel completes its transition during this dark period, then when it's the right color, the backlight turns back on.
This process essentially turns all the wrong color frames into blank frames..
It requires a higher pixel transition / response rate , at least 100hz..
This was only possible for a while on TN panels, IPS is getting there.. and finally perhaps in the future, OLED will get there too.
Do you have any literature you can link me to that references this problem? I can't find anything via my own web searching.
Do you play computer games at all?
hahaha.. I'm surprised you're not familiar with this being a geekhack member.
The feature is called ULMB
Check out blurbuster for info.
But very basically, when you turn off the backlight on an LCD, it goes dark, the pixel completes its transition during this dark period, then when it's the right color, the backlight turns back on.
This process essentially turns all the wrong color frames into blank frames..
It requires a higher pixel transition / response rate , at least 100hz..
This was only possible for a while on TN panels, IPS is getting there.. and finally perhaps in the future, OLED will get there too.
I think we're both talking about two different things. Sorry, I'm specifically referencing broadcast television monitors, where the refresh rate is either 48hz or 60hz in order to match the frame rate of the original source video (generally 24, 30fps). I could see how this could be a problem for things that require something faster (like computer games).
CRT's in all respects except for their sheer size.
When I go out buying stuff, I am willing to pay large sums of money for products that I consider perfect. For example my Realforce 87UB comes close (enough). So does my Avior 7000.
But LCD's? Don't get me started. It's compromise all over the place:
- backlight uniformity almost impossible with 2015/2016 monitors for 27"-32"
- backlight bleed? still there
- backlight tint (gradient from white to blueish or yellowish tint)? still there
- VA-panels with grey shift and banding
- PWM? Still there, although less. Yes, I know CRT's have Hz refresh rate, but I found that less annoying than PWM on some of the LCD's.
- Black levels? IPS sucks, VA great but then grey shift and banding.
CRT's, especially DiamondTron's, were perfect in my opinion: great colour depth, good black levels, very sharp (I believe even sharper than some of the LCD's).
I miss them but I wouldn't go back. But the state of 2015/2016 LCD's is worrying me. It's going backwards.
CRTs used to always give me headaches, so LCDs won out personally.
CRTs used to always give me headaches, so LCDs won out personally.
85 hz on crt is the non-flashy point..
LCDs don't flash, but due to ULMB, it turns out Flashing is necessary, so we need to flash LCDs now at 100+ hz..
CRTs used to always give me headaches, so LCDs won out personally.
85 hz on crt is the non-flashy point..
LCDs don't flash, but due to ULMB, it turns out Flashing is necessary, so we need to flash LCDs now at 100+ hz..
But non-PWM monitors don't flash amiright? Or is some sort of flashing inherent to the LCD tech? Anyway, my Iiyama's were between 100-120 hz and that felt better than most LCDs
CRT's are for try-hard CS players and underground Smash Bro's tournaments.
I still use a CRT monitor and I wouldn't trade it for some ****ty flat panel any day!
I still use a CRT monitor and I wouldn't trade it for some ****ty flat panel any day!
Do you have a Diamandtron? I want to get one.
Now I have the Eizo Prominence. Tell me "any" CRT is better. I had all the highest end crt's. At this point a $6,000 lcd can walk all over them. A $100 Dell still cannot. Remember those crt's were also 6 grand once. Technology progresses. My TOTL OLED TV will walk all over a crt and I would like to see a 105" crt lol. Other older technologies like rear projection cannot hold a candle to it either.
My kingdom for a 75" 4k CRT. It will need it's own room, and may eventually fall through the floor. The rabbit ears will be epic. You all can come over to play E.T. and fill up on Doritos and Tab.Enjoy your 1in tall "pixels" and massive black side borders. (https://cdn.geekhack.org/Smileys/solosmileys/laugh.gif)
My kingdom for a 75" 4k CRT. It will need it's own room, and may eventually fall through the floor. The rabbit ears will be epic. You all can come over to play E.T. and fill up on Doritos and Tab.Enjoy your 1in tall "pixels" and massive black side borders.Show Image(https://cdn.geekhack.org/Smileys/solosmileys/laugh.gif)
The 2600 had horrible resolution, 160 x 192 with tricks, typically 40x192.