Author Topic: geekhack on crt vs. lcd  (Read 21632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Konrad

  • Posts: 348
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #50 on: Tue, 05 October 2010, 19:34:48 »
Aha, well I didn't catch your $60 cost before. My quick ebay look was showing a few MultiSyncs at ~$300 ... one unit at over $3K! (Seemed a little shocking/stupid to me, given that these old monitors didn't cost that much when new. Then again, I've seen Apple II computers sell for $9K and D&D books sell for $700 and domain names sell for $200K ... collectors will pay premium prices for all sorts of random junk.)
 
$60 for a 29" monitor ... that's actually pretty good. I'd go for it.
 
Even if it's a bloody huge 2½x2½x3' cube which fills up the entire desk, and weighs 100lbs. Assuming it works and doesn't have any excessive burn-in, dimming, fading, or other wear-and-tear problems. Assuming it doesn't need any costly repairs or mods (like new fuses, caps, transformers, aftermarket cooling) to continue working well.  Assuming the shipping costs aren't ridiculous.
 
The signal box does promise greater convenience and compatibility and portability, since I assume it's nowhere near as bulky as a 29" CRT. But it might create it's own problems, not actually be 100% compatible, make visual artifacts, force compromises, who knows? I'd expect that these things will be around for a long time (whilst 15KHz monitors become extinct), and they might even get better but I doubt they'll ever get cheaper. Again, do the monitor - you can always buy a signal converter later.
 
Of course you could hack/mod each of your retro devices for more modern output. Rip that analog crap right out of the loop, lol. Sort of like ppl upgrading their ancient 6502/Z80 machinery with cards that add 20GB CF storage or whatever. (Incidentally, there's now an Apple IIx VGA card, apparently.)

Offline typo

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1676
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #51 on: Thu, 14 October 2010, 22:25:47 »
i don't know guys. why would a crt be that coveted? i thought they were untill i got the eizo cg222w. i have never seen any crt that looks this good. the color depth is simply amazing. the black level and white balance far surpass crt. probably the best thing about it can be had on a $75 lcd though! no stinking geometry issue. remember the best crt's were a couple grand 20 years ago. so in todays money we have the eizo lcd i guess. of course i got a deal anyways.

Offline Konrad

  • Posts: 348
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #52 on: Fri, 15 October 2010, 04:49:30 »
I think one of the important issues (for Nameless, in this case) is compatibility.
 
Old tech is always 100% compatible with the other old tech it was designed for.  Assuming it still works.

Offline alec

  • Posts: 35
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #53 on: Fri, 15 October 2010, 05:11:40 »
Quote from: typo;234013
i got the eizo cg222w
This is a common reaction from people who see PVA matrix for the first time after being surrounded by hordes of TN-Film generic crap. But it only proves that TN-Film is, well, crap.
CRT has its own perks
Noppoo Choc Mini

Offline CodeChef

  • Posts: 280
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #54 on: Fri, 15 October 2010, 08:44:44 »
Quote from: alec;234112
This is a common reaction from people who see PVA matrix for the first time after being surrounded by hordes of TN-Film generic crap. But it only proves that TN-Film is, well, crap.
CRT has its own perks


Imagine his reaction when he sees IPS for the first time. Brix. Will. Be. Shat.
[sigpic][/sigpic]

Offline zefrer

  • Posts: 299
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #55 on: Fri, 15 October 2010, 08:47:40 »
Quote from: alec;234112
This is a common reaction from people who see PVA matrix for the first time after being surrounded by hordes of TN-Film generic crap. But it only proves that TN-Film is, well, crap.
CRT has its own perks


Yup, exactly.

Offline typo

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1676
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #56 on: Fri, 15 October 2010, 21:20:51 »
the cg222w is s-ips not pva. lacie's are pva. the eizo has 12 bit luts and a 16 bit engine.
that is far more colors than the human eye can even see!

yes, tn there is no comparison. it is trash.

Offline typo

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1676
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #57 on: Fri, 15 October 2010, 21:21:51 »
oops, sorry. hit submit twice.

Offline Konrad

  • Posts: 348
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #58 on: Sat, 16 October 2010, 08:17:58 »
Outside of retro-compatibility, though, who needs the advantages of CRTs and such?
 
Sometimes I prefer CRT to LCD when doing high fps-gaming on monster resolutions, regardless of the graphic card capabilities. The difference can be obvious, you don't see "ghosting" effects from a display that can keep clearing and refreshing pixels as fast as necessary. LCDs are always improving, but there's still some room for improvement, 2ms grey-to-grey is still a little sucky compared to pure analog.
 
I suppose some kinds of monitors have display much more vibrant/accurate colours ... useful in animation and some industries, no doubt ... but even that advantage is probably disappearing as the panel makers improve their engineering each year. Though I haven't been all that impressed with the new RGBY displays.
 
Of course my LCDs don't blast my eyeballs with ionizing radiation.  Properly functioning CRTs may not emit much, but it's still not good for you over time, especially from 2 feet away.

Offline microsoft windows

  • Blue Troll of Death
  • * Exalted Elder
  • Posts: 3621
  • President of geekhack.org
    • Get Internet Explorer 6
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #59 on: Sat, 16 October 2010, 10:18:13 »
CRT's are also much easier to get for free than LCD's. I did get a few flat panels for free  and use them where I don't have the space for CRT's, but the free CRT's tend to be better.
CLICK HERE!     OFFICIAL PRESIDENT OF GEEKHACK.ORG    MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN MERRY CHRISTMAS

Offline EverythingIBM

  • Posts: 1269
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #60 on: Sat, 16 October 2010, 10:42:06 »
Quote from: Konrad;234638

Of course my LCDs don't blast my eyeballs with ionizing radiation.  Properly functioning CRTs may not emit much, but it's still not good for you over time, especially from 2 feet away.


If CRT radiation was really *that bad*, they wouldn't have been released for consumers.
I've used and use CRTs a lot. My health is perfectly fine.

Although my eyes are a very weird yellow colour under decent lighting, I doubt that has anything to do with CRT radiation. Yellow just seems like such an unnatural colour for eyes.
Keyboards: '86 M, M5-2, M13, SSK, F AT, F XT

Offline keyb_gr

  • Posts: 1384
  • Location: Germany
  • Cherrified user
    • My keyboard page (German)
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #61 on: Sat, 16 October 2010, 12:55:23 »
Most any CRT still worth using would be at least MPR-II or preferably TCO-92 (upwards) compliant. The effect of radiation should be insignificant compared to flicker and blurriness.
Hardware in signatures clutters Google search results. There should be a field in the profile for that (again).

This message was probably typed on a vintage G80-3000 with blues. Double-shots, baby. :D

Offline NewbieOneKenobi

  • Posts: 634
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #62 on: Sat, 16 October 2010, 18:57:11 »
I loved CRTs as compared to LCD and it took a long time. Now I can't get convinced to switch to LED.

Offline EverythingIBM

  • Posts: 1269
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #63 on: Sat, 16 October 2010, 20:41:27 »
Quote from: ripster;234750
Yep, if it was bad for you we wouldn't have lead paint.


A house with lead paint, asbestos, and a whole bunch of CRTs would be perfectly fine for the health.
Keyboards: '86 M, M5-2, M13, SSK, F AT, F XT

Offline Konrad

  • Posts: 348
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #64 on: Sun, 17 October 2010, 01:02:49 »
Lead's not bad, but I personally prefer cadmium and mercury, myself.  You get used to the smell after you solder enough electronics.

Offline NamelessPFG

  • Posts: 373
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #65 on: Mon, 18 October 2010, 19:18:45 »
Quote from: typo;234013
i don't know guys. why would a crt be that coveted?
To start, read these.

Some people really want their scanlines and a pure, authentic image that only a proper 15 KHz RGB-compatible CRT can offer. They will even go so far as to mod in RGB support if it's not present already. Furthermore, they would actually want something with a coarse dot/grille pitch for such low-definition rendering, not a fine dot/grille pitch like on a PC monitor, because it tends to accentuate the flaws more.

Go on the GamesX.com or Shmups.com forums. It's those kind of folks that insist on this sort of thing.

(Now, if I could figure out how to get the geometry and lower corner convergence just right...the OSD alone won't let me do it, but I don't feel like mucking around in a source of lethal voltages just yet.)

Quote from: Konrad;234638
Outside of retro-compatibility, though, who needs the advantages of CRTs and such?
 
Sometimes I prefer CRT to LCD when doing high fps-gaming on monster resolutions, regardless of the graphic card capabilities. The difference can be obvious, you don't see "ghosting" effects from a display that can keep clearing and refreshing pixels as fast as necessary.
You answered your own question.

Though in my case, it's not so much the ghosting as the extra smoothness of motion that refresh rates upwards of 60 Hz bring, as well as the lack of input lag.

The Samsung 2233rz I saw had some nice, smooth motion as well when actually running at 120 Hz, but it's a TN panel, thus awful viewing angles. Not desirable if I'm using the TrackIR.

Offline typo

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 1676
geekhack on crt vs. lcd
« Reply #66 on: Tue, 19 October 2010, 00:03:49 »
the cg222w is for photo proofing. in that respect (i never thought i would say this) i think it has far surpassed any crt. you would not want this for gaming. the refresh is like 50ms or something.

i am comparing appples to apples. the cg222w would be compared to a sony artisan. a tn panel would be compared to most any sony "cpd".

the problem i have had is indeed crt's last a long time. the time they are actually in their prime is rather short though.