Author Topic: CRT's are better than LCD's.  (Read 92502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #250 on: Mon, 30 August 2010, 17:49:09 »
The LCDs in question are some sort of high-end LaCie monitor and an Eizo CG221, the latter of which costs AT LEAST US$5,000. That's over 2.5 times what my desktop cost me, even after the upgrades I've done to it! Oh, and it's only 22"/1920x1200. I can't even fathom what they'd charge for a 30"/2560x1600 variant, which already gets a massive price spike over 22" to 24"/1920x1200 at the not-so-color-picky end of the market.

There are many of us that can't afford the HP LP3065 or Dell 3008WFP, let alone the HP LP2480zx DreamColor or especially anything by LaCie or Eizo. About the closest I've seen to an affordable LCD that wasn't TN trash was a Dell 2005FPW on the local craigslist for $100, and even that could be a tossup between IPS and PVA from what I've read (not to mention still ten times more than what I paid for my Sun GDM-5410).

What I'm trying to say is that the exorbitant cost in getting a videophile-worthy LCD isn't helping for many of us. The most snobbish of gamers might even turn their noses up at the LaCie and Eizo panels due to the whole native resolution and input lag things associated with LCDs-even nice IPS or AFFS panels-that CRTs don't have to deal with, though I'm personally not that uptight about it.
« Last Edit: Mon, 30 August 2010, 17:51:54 by NamelessPFG »

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #251 on: Mon, 30 August 2010, 18:46:30 »
$5000 LCD versus $5 CRT...I'll take the CRT.
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline EverythingIBM

  • Posts: 1269
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #252 on: Mon, 30 August 2010, 18:51:49 »
Quote from: microsoft windows;218376
$5000 LCD versus $5 CRT...I'll take the CRT.


Good LCDs aren't that expensive.

But marketing does a good job of making people pay more for than what something is really worth.
Keyboards: '86 M, M5-2, M13, SSK, F AT, F XT

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #253 on: Mon, 30 August 2010, 20:13:23 »
Decent quality LCD's can run up a few hundred bucks though. CRT's are just much, much cheaper and can be much better (Regarding image quality).
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #254 on: Mon, 30 August 2010, 20:16:40 »
I think that a lot of the price premium for the LaCie and Eizo products boils down to the color calibration and insistence on holding it. They even come with Gretag Eye-One colorimeters sold new, if I'm not mistaken.

Marketing is indeed another factor, though-upmarketing in this particular case. They offer some of the best, if not the best, LCDs on the market in terms of color reproduction, and they know that graphics design pros will eat the cost to have the best.

Yet another possibility is that almost all CRTs nowadays are sold used (I mean, they haven't been made for several years now), whereas those are likely new prices on those LCDs. We all know what that new-vs.-used distinction will do to the selling price of something.

Offline typo

  • Posts: 1113
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #255 on: Tue, 31 August 2010, 00:44:57 »
don't worry. i did not pay anywhere near the $5,149 list price. it was opened and for that the company that bought it lost their shirt on it. buying/returning pro equipment is not the same as at walmart. i do not buy anything unless i get a deal. well, except maybe my dinner or whatever. what is really impressive though is lcd's to me at least cannot beat a free crt untill you get to this level. that says a lot in favor of free crt's. plus this thing has this darn grainy/fuzzy ag coating that sucks in internet explorer. also it is way to bright on a white background but fine on any colored background.

then like a fool i used a paper towel. i honestly did not know i always had a crt. luckily it is fine. it has a "3 hard coating" whatever that is.

this thing is not for everyone anyways. like i said i had to completely second guess the calibration puck to get the colors right on the internet. then the thing sucks at video. 30ms lag time. in all honesty unless you are a photo lab those hp's are probably good displays for regular usage.

if you look around the net you can find real good lcd's(ips) starting around $200 for 20" 4:3. i am talking much better than the tn you get at best buy. of course these are used,b-stock,refurbished or whatever but i have never had an issue buying that way.

in the end crt's still rule unless you ask my back.
the problem is that "fresh" high end crt's are already becoming scarce.

Offline ch_123

  • * Exalted Elder
  • Posts: 5853
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #256 on: Tue, 31 August 2010, 10:16:54 »
Quote from: microsoft windows;218376
$5000 LCD versus $5 CRT...I'll take the CRT.


Did the CRT originally cost $5?

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #257 on: Tue, 31 August 2010, 13:52:13 »
Quote from: ch_123;218533
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.

Offline ch_123

  • * Exalted Elder
  • Posts: 5853
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #258 on: Tue, 31 August 2010, 14:26:01 »
Quote from: NamelessPFG;218593
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.


That's nothing. I was looking at archived IBM websites yesterday, and was thinking "They sold standard CRTs for how much?"

Offline Pylon

  • Posts: 554
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #259 on: Wed, 01 September 2010, 15:05:31 »
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)

Offline typo

  • Posts: 1113
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #260 on: Mon, 06 September 2010, 06:54:45 »
$200 or so lcd's suck. the crt's we are using were not $200 either. a grand back then is more now. now that i have probably the best lcd currently made i have completely changed my mind. i was looking at a fw900 a little while ago this morning and the text looked aweful after having been on this lcd. i think the reason crt's are favored is because very good ones are now mostly free. if you ante up for a photo production class lcd it is going to be a different story imo. really we need to compare technology at the same level. when that is done the lcd's win. you are all using top of the line crt's not bottom of the line. anyhow a real good lcd can be had for what those crt's originally cost. i think most people will find it to be better all the way around. i just did not know this because i was only exposed to a lcd like this mere days ago.

Offline Soarer

  • * Elevated Elder
  • Posts: 1918
  • Location: UK
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #261 on: Sun, 17 October 2010, 17:48:41 »
Quote from: NamelessPFG;218593
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.

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #262 on: Sun, 17 October 2010, 20:12:25 »
Quote from: Soarer;235276
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.

Offline zefrer

  • Posts: 299
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #263 on: Sun, 17 October 2010, 20:54:59 »
Quote from: NamelessPFG;235321
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.


You and me both. I refuse to buy a "full hd" monitor that sacrifices screen real estate for marketing BS.

Offline zefrer

  • Posts: 299
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #264 on: Sun, 17 October 2010, 21:06:40 »
Quote from: EverythingIBM;217109
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 if you connect a digital monitor to an analog output of a digital video card what happens? The digital signal from the video card is converted to analog, passes through the cable and gets converted into digital at the monitor side.

As you can understand this conversion means image quality degradation, twice. Brightness and colors are affected. Try it if you want, connect both dvi and vga and switch between the two. I see a huge difference.

Offline EverythingIBM

  • Posts: 1269
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #265 on: Mon, 18 October 2010, 18:05:23 »
Quote from: Pylon;218926
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)

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.
« Last Edit: Mon, 18 October 2010, 18:07:50 by EverythingIBM »
Keyboards: '86 M, M5-2, M13, SSK, F AT, F XT

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #266 on: Wed, 10 November 2010, 17:46:47 »
Quote from: ch_123;218607
That's nothing. I was looking at archived IBM websites yesterday, and was thinking "They sold standard CRTs for how much?"


I own one of those CRT's. I purchased it for $5 at a tag sale. I gotta say it's the best monitor I've ever used.
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline Computer-Lab in Basement

  • The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
  • * Elevated Elder
  • Posts: 3021
  • Location: NCC-1701, USS Enterprise
  • Live long and prosper
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #267 on: Wed, 10 November 2010, 18:04:19 »
Actually I bought it and then i traded you for a smalled CRT cause that one was too big to fit on my desk...
tp thread is tp thread
Sometimes it's like he accidentally makes a thread instead of a google search.

Offline dismas

  • Posts: 5
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #268 on: Thu, 11 November 2010, 11:14:41 »
Seems like all Starcraft 1 progamers use CRTs in tournaments if that means anything.

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #269 on: Fri, 12 November 2010, 15:32:55 »
Quote from: EverythingIBM;235660
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.


Even my good CRT's like my IBM P275 Trinitron look pretty flickery at 60Hz. But, if you turn down the contrast, 60Hz isn't that bad.

One thing I've noticed, lik eoyu have, is monitors (CRT's mainly) tend to get a little more blurry when you turn up the refresh rate. But different people have different eyes---Some people are sensitive to the flickering while some others are not.
« Last Edit: Fri, 12 November 2010, 15:51:32 by microsoft windows »
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline typo

  • Posts: 1113
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #270 on: Thu, 02 December 2010, 21:54:57 »
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 :)

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #271 on: Fri, 03 December 2010, 16:17:47 »
I'll probably have some nice LCD monitors in 20 years.
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #272 on: Fri, 03 December 2010, 18:38:17 »
Quote from: typo;256089
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 :)

Do you keep a separate gaming monitor around, then?

I'm just tired of these tradeoffs in current display technologies. I hate compromises. I want to see at least one thing out there that blows away everything we currently have in every single category for every single purpose, be it gaming, movies, or very color-sensitive photo/print editing, even if it's ungodly expensive at first. I want to see it happen. What will it take? Laser DLP? sAMOLED? QLED?

Offline typo

  • Posts: 1113
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #273 on: Sat, 04 December 2010, 00:58:13 »
namelesspfg, i completely agree. i don't play games. i use this monitor for work. which is just coding but i really like it for viewing the web. the internet did not look close to the same on my last crt. which was a 21" gdm something or other. the gdm's were as good as they got. of course it was old so it might have been much betteer back in the day. i don't remember. i don't think any lcd lasts as long as a crt. i think you can keep a crt running 30 years or more with some minimal repairs to the electronics sometimes.

it is a shame that people cannot see their games in all their glory. games today have amazing quality graphics. gamers have to use a lower qaulity lcd just to get the lag time down. like tn. i can't even look at tn just walking through a store.

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #274 on: Sat, 04 December 2010, 08:23:10 »
I use my trusty old 13" CRT from 1994 when playing Railroad Tycoon. It does the job quite nicely.
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline Bilbin

  • Posts: 166
  • Location: Australia
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #275 on: Sun, 13 November 2011, 03:48:08 »
Can someone please help me with GDM-5410 settings, I just picked this up for free and have no idea what settings to change or anything.
Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless Blues - Razer Abyssus - PureTrak Talent

Offline Bilbin

  • Posts: 166
  • Location: Australia
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #276 on: Sun, 13 November 2011, 06:11:49 »
need help setting the gamma.
Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless Blues - Razer Abyssus - PureTrak Talent

Offline iindigo

  • Posts: 99
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #277 on: Sun, 13 November 2011, 10:12:04 »
Quote from: EverythingIBM;235660
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.


To me, a CRT running at 60Hz looks like a strobe light and using it that way will give me a headache faster than you can say "flicker". 75Hz and higher, in comparison, feels much more like a solid image (though not as solid as an LCD's image).

Offline Pretendo

  • Posts: 113
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #278 on: Wed, 16 November 2011, 20:26:58 »
CRTs have a few fringe benefits in picture quality, but these are far outweighed by the whole size/ugliness issue.  Their heyday was in the beige era; most of them have yellowed with age by now!  Cat sick yellow is not sexy.  Even those that weren't beige or didn't yellow just looked like a giant solid colored plastic box.  Nothing about LCD picture is so awful that I'd ever consider going back to the CRT.

I will concede that my bedroom television is a late 80s Trinitron.  I play allot of older video games that would look like crap on an LCD TV. For a CRT it actually looks pretty stylish.  Black, accented with silver and faux wood grain. Gotta love it.

PS- OLED tech is rapidly maturing!  Nostalgics will soon be hearkening back to the LCDs natural looking output and tasteful fluorescent backlighting.
IBM Model F-122 6110347 -- September 13th, 1984
IBM Model M 1391404 -- April 14th, 1988
Rosewill RK-9000

Offline Lmnr

  • Posts: 210
  • Location: Atlanta,GA
  • The Jack Of All Trades
    • W.W.C.
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #279 on: Wed, 16 November 2011, 20:31:00 »
CRT + 120hz = Jizz..
Viewsonic lcd + 120hz = ....
Peripherals:
Realforce 87uw with grey caps,Ducky YOTR Blues,Realforce 104ug Hipro,Zowie Am FG,WMO 1.1a,Sidewinder X3

Offline Malphas

  • Posts: 247
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #280 on: Wed, 16 November 2011, 21:33:22 »
I loved degaussing CRT monitors, so satisfying.

Offline Bilbin

  • Posts: 166
  • Location: Australia
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #281 on: Thu, 17 November 2011, 09:23:49 »
Quake, CRT, 160Hz




mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless Blues - Razer Abyssus - PureTrak Talent

Offline SH1

  • Posts: 6
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #282 on: Sun, 15 January 2012, 21:11:07 »
Quote from: Pretendo;453677
...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....

Offline OkGold

  • Posts: 52
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #283 on: Sun, 15 January 2012, 21:35:16 »
Quote from: SH1;491354
No they won't...and you can pry my Sony GDM-F520 CRT from my cold...well, from my hands...with an OLED....

seconded, we like CRTs because of their look, not because they're the last generation. OLED is showing a return to the same conditions we cherish.

Offline Inf3rn0_44

  • Posts: 111
  • Location: Rhode Island
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #284 on: Tue, 20 March 2012, 22:13:28 »
I want to buy a CRT again.. I hate input lag, I'll use it for gaming. Suggestions? (Gotta buy locally, Providence region)
|IMO 1.0 Frankenmouse WMO Internals |
|Access-IS AKC090 Ghetto Reds w/ O-Rings |

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #285 on: Sat, 24 March 2012, 01:41:20 »
As long as it's an FD Trinitron or Diamondtron NF aperture grille monitor in working order, you should be good to go.

Even better if it's 21" or bigger, but those monitors aren't quite that common, being just one notch below the FW900 as far as high-end CRT monitors go.

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #286 on: Thu, 24 October 2013, 16:23:15 »
Well, guess what? It's been three years and CRT's are still better!
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline rowdy

  • HHKB Hapster
  • * Erudite Elder
  • Posts: 21065
  • Location: melbourne.vic.au
  • Missed another sale.
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #287 on: Thu, 24 October 2013, 17:18:08 »
For a second there I thought I'd missed 10 pages of debate overnight, but then I realised this was such an old thread.

Are there any widescreen CRTs?
"Because keyboards are accessories to PC makers, they focus on minimizing the manufacturing costs. But thatís incorrect. Itís in HHKBís slogan, but when Americaís cowboys were in the middle of a trip and their horse died, they would leave the horse there. But even if they were in the middle of a desert, they would take their saddle with them. The horse was a consumable good, but the saddle was an interface that their bodies had gotten used to. In the same vein, PCs are consumable goods, while keyboards are important interfaces." - Eiiti Wada

NEC APC-H4100E | Ducky DK9008 Shine MX blue LED red | Ducky DK9008 Shine MX blue LED green | Link 900243-08 | CM QFR MX black | KeyCool 87 white MX reds | HHKB 2 Pro | Model M 02-Mar-1993 | Model M 29-Nov-1995 | CM Trigger (broken) | CM QFS MX green | Ducky DK9087 Shine 3 TKL Yellow Edition MX black | Lexmark SSK 21-Apr-1994 | IBM SSK 13-Oct-1987 | CODE TKL MX clear | Model M 122 01-Jun-1988

Ị̸͚̯̲́ͤ̃͑̇̑ͯ̊̂͟ͅs̞͚̩͉̝̪̲͗͊ͪ̽̚̚ ̭̦͖͕̑́͌ͬͩ͟t̷̻͔̙̑͟h̹̠̼͋ͤ͋i̤̜̣̦̱̫͈͔̞ͭ͑ͥ̌̔s̬͔͎̍̈ͥͫ̐̾ͣ̔̇͘ͅ ̩̘̼͆̐̕e̞̰͓̲̺̎͐̏ͬ̓̅̾͠͝ͅv̶̰͕̱̞̥̍ͣ̄̕e͕͙͖̬̜͓͎̤̊ͭ͐͝ṇ̰͎̱̤̟̭ͫ͌̌͢͠ͅ ̳̥̦ͮ̐ͤ̎̊ͣ͡͡n̤̜̙̺̪̒͜e̶̻̦̿ͮ̂̀c̝̘̝͖̠̖͐ͨͪ̈̐͌ͩ̀e̷̥͇̋ͦs̢̡̤ͤͤͯ͜s͈̠̉̑͘a̱͕̗͖̳̥̺ͬͦͧ͆̌̑͡r̶̟̖̈͘ỷ̮̦̩͙͔ͫ̾ͬ̔ͬͮ̌?̵̘͇͔͙ͥͪ͞ͅ

Offline TLSC.wipeOut

  • Posts: 325
  • Location: Canada
  • "Who dares, wins"
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #288 on: Thu, 24 October 2013, 17:52:16 »
CRTs are meant for Windows 98
OTD 456GT with Lubricated 68g Gold Spring MX Clears and GMK Dolch Keycap set

WTB: KMAC2 kit

Offline rowdy

  • HHKB Hapster
  • * Erudite Elder
  • Posts: 21065
  • Location: melbourne.vic.au
  • Missed another sale.
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #289 on: Thu, 24 October 2013, 17:59:38 »
Most of the servers at work still have CRTs on them.

My serve at home had a CRT on it until I amassed a small collection of spare LCDs.
"Because keyboards are accessories to PC makers, they focus on minimizing the manufacturing costs. But thatís incorrect. Itís in HHKBís slogan, but when Americaís cowboys were in the middle of a trip and their horse died, they would leave the horse there. But even if they were in the middle of a desert, they would take their saddle with them. The horse was a consumable good, but the saddle was an interface that their bodies had gotten used to. In the same vein, PCs are consumable goods, while keyboards are important interfaces." - Eiiti Wada

NEC APC-H4100E | Ducky DK9008 Shine MX blue LED red | Ducky DK9008 Shine MX blue LED green | Link 900243-08 | CM QFR MX black | KeyCool 87 white MX reds | HHKB 2 Pro | Model M 02-Mar-1993 | Model M 29-Nov-1995 | CM Trigger (broken) | CM QFS MX green | Ducky DK9087 Shine 3 TKL Yellow Edition MX black | Lexmark SSK 21-Apr-1994 | IBM SSK 13-Oct-1987 | CODE TKL MX clear | Model M 122 01-Jun-1988

Ị̸͚̯̲́ͤ̃͑̇̑ͯ̊̂͟ͅs̞͚̩͉̝̪̲͗͊ͪ̽̚̚ ̭̦͖͕̑́͌ͬͩ͟t̷̻͔̙̑͟h̹̠̼͋ͤ͋i̤̜̣̦̱̫͈͔̞ͭ͑ͥ̌̔s̬͔͎̍̈ͥͫ̐̾ͣ̔̇͘ͅ ̩̘̼͆̐̕e̞̰͓̲̺̎͐̏ͬ̓̅̾͠͝ͅv̶̰͕̱̞̥̍ͣ̄̕e͕͙͖̬̜͓͎̤̊ͭ͐͝ṇ̰͎̱̤̟̭ͫ͌̌͢͠ͅ ̳̥̦ͮ̐ͤ̎̊ͣ͡͡n̤̜̙̺̪̒͜e̶̻̦̿ͮ̂̀c̝̘̝͖̠̖͐ͨͪ̈̐͌ͩ̀e̷̥͇̋ͦs̢̡̤ͤͤͯ͜s͈̠̉̑͘a̱͕̗͖̳̥̺ͬͦͧ͆̌̑͡r̶̟̖̈͘ỷ̮̦̩͙͔ͫ̾ͬ̔ͬͮ̌?̵̘͇͔͙ͥͪ͞ͅ

Offline tp4tissue

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 12587
  • Location: Official Geekhack Public Defender..
  • OmniExpert of: Rice, Top-Ramen, Ergodox, n Females
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #290 on: Thu, 24 October 2013, 18:04:32 »
The only CRT worth clinging onto are the rare fw900s... aka "crusher of weak tables"

You could make an argument for "PRO" monitors, but those often have weird config issues on modern hardware...

with the 120/144hz tns,  the crts make less sense since the blacks are better on LCD, and very few crts do more than 85hz at high res.

Offline Latin00032

  • * Destiny Supporter
  • Posts: 1528
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #291 on: Thu, 24 October 2013, 18:27:25 »
I still have my fw900. I haven't used it in 2 years.

It had nice color.

Offline Oobly

  • * Esteemed Elder
  • Posts: 3929
  • Location: Finland
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #292 on: Fri, 25 October 2013, 01:53:08 »
I loved my Philips 17" CRT. I used to run 1152x864 resolution at 85Hz. The colour reproduction was way better than any LCD available at the time. Now, some of the better IPS displays are about as good, but they aren't as good for gaming. The LCDs that are good for gaming don't have great colour reproduction, but they're improving slowly.

I have been waiting since 2000 (when I discovered the technology was being developed) for a decent size OLED desktop display.... <sigh> 13 years of disappointment.
Buying more keycaps,
it really hacks my wallet,
but I must have them.

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #293 on: Fri, 25 October 2013, 04:31:20 »
Well, this thread got a new lease on life...

My GDM-FW900's still going strong. I'll keep using it 'til it dies.

However, now that NVIDIA's announced G-SYNC to make monitors refresh on the GPU's terms instead of the other way around, I may not have to be as insistent on CRTs for smooth gaming in the future. I'd use the controller board with my FW900 if I could get away with it, but something tells me it doesn't have any sort of analog output, and whipping up a video DAC to go with it would be hilariously impractical.

Offline TheSoulhunter

  • Posts: 1169
  • Location: Euroland
  • Thorpelicious!
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #294 on: Fri, 25 October 2013, 04:48:54 »
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 >.>

Offline terran5992

  • Posts: 1485
  • Location: Singapore
  • One With The Cup Rubber
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #295 on: Fri, 25 October 2013, 05:04:03 »
CRT for the hz, and LCD for the clarity

Listokei Custom  |  HHKB Pro 2  |  Topre Realforce 103UBH  |  Armageddon MKA-3


Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #296 on: Fri, 25 October 2013, 10:50:00 »
CRTs are meant for Windows 98

And that's why they are vastly superior.
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #297 on: Fri, 25 October 2013, 10:51:10 »
CRT for the hz, and LCD for the clarity

CRT's for everything!
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline rowdy

  • HHKB Hapster
  • * Erudite Elder
  • Posts: 21065
  • Location: melbourne.vic.au
  • Missed another sale.
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #298 on: Sat, 26 October 2013, 02:01:56 »
CRTs for president!
"Because keyboards are accessories to PC makers, they focus on minimizing the manufacturing costs. But thatís incorrect. Itís in HHKBís slogan, but when Americaís cowboys were in the middle of a trip and their horse died, they would leave the horse there. But even if they were in the middle of a desert, they would take their saddle with them. The horse was a consumable good, but the saddle was an interface that their bodies had gotten used to. In the same vein, PCs are consumable goods, while keyboards are important interfaces." - Eiiti Wada

NEC APC-H4100E | Ducky DK9008 Shine MX blue LED red | Ducky DK9008 Shine MX blue LED green | Link 900243-08 | CM QFR MX black | KeyCool 87 white MX reds | HHKB 2 Pro | Model M 02-Mar-1993 | Model M 29-Nov-1995 | CM Trigger (broken) | CM QFS MX green | Ducky DK9087 Shine 3 TKL Yellow Edition MX black | Lexmark SSK 21-Apr-1994 | IBM SSK 13-Oct-1987 | CODE TKL MX clear | Model M 122 01-Jun-1988

Ị̸͚̯̲́ͤ̃͑̇̑ͯ̊̂͟ͅs̞͚̩͉̝̪̲͗͊ͪ̽̚̚ ̭̦͖͕̑́͌ͬͩ͟t̷̻͔̙̑͟h̹̠̼͋ͤ͋i̤̜̣̦̱̫͈͔̞ͭ͑ͥ̌̔s̬͔͎̍̈ͥͫ̐̾ͣ̔̇͘ͅ ̩̘̼͆̐̕e̞̰͓̲̺̎͐̏ͬ̓̅̾͠͝ͅv̶̰͕̱̞̥̍ͣ̄̕e͕͙͖̬̜͓͎̤̊ͭ͐͝ṇ̰͎̱̤̟̭ͫ͌̌͢͠ͅ ̳̥̦ͮ̐ͤ̎̊ͣ͡͡n̤̜̙̺̪̒͜e̶̻̦̿ͮ̂̀c̝̘̝͖̠̖͐ͨͪ̈̐͌ͩ̀e̷̥͇̋ͦs̢̡̤ͤͤͯ͜s͈̠̉̑͘a̱͕̗͖̳̥̺ͬͦͧ͆̌̑͡r̶̟̖̈͘ỷ̮̦̩͙͔ͫ̾ͬ̔ͬͮ̌?̵̘͇͔͙ͥͪ͞ͅ

Offline Hak Foo

  • Posts: 1233
  • Make America Clicky Again!
Re: CRT's are better than LCD's.
« Reply #299 on: Sat, 26 October 2013, 02:43:00 »
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.
Home: Tactile Pro 4 PC
Work: Customizer 104
Spare: Quickfire XT, Greens, Retro DSA