What do you think of CRT monitors? For anything...

What do you think of CRT monitors? For anything. I've seen some professional ones people use for classic gaming and desktop computer monitors, but have they been surpassed yet for the common merits they are praised for like black levels, response time, etc? I've been using LCD displays for about 10 years now and I still notice how blacks are only black by contrast of the surrounding area, otherwise they appear plainly as bluish with light bulging through.

I thought we would all be using OLED by now

oh well, maybe next decade

bump
too old for neo/v/?

OLED has a very short lifespan, so you can use it now, but it's very expensive, and won't last more than 5 years at half brightness.

so what, when it becomes cheap enough, you just buy another one with slightly better life span due to 5 years of improvements

this is not how they work, and even then you are still dealing with input lag due to processing, especially from non-native signals.

>What do you think of CRT monitors?
Worse geometry, convergence, sharpness, ridiculous power usage and lower resolution than modern LCDs.
Better colors and latency.
I replaced my CRT monitors with a LCD in 2011 and it paid itself within months.

still using one.

its all about price, if they were 1/10th the price they are now then shit would take off, but i guess we just gotta keep waiting to see if we end up living in that timeline

as for muh lag, i know the sony pro monitors claim to be able to do sub-frame latency which is good enuf in my book; i presume they buffer horizontal strips rather than whole frames.

CRTs either range from enthusiast expensive (bvm, htm, tm, pvm, rgb pro monitors on ebay, etc.) or practically free/thrift store prices. I think it's worth knowing what the deal is with them, this way you can keep an eye out at yard sales and stuff, and you may find something killer like a NEC XM/XP or a diamondtron or FW900 or something.

Used CRTs are all run down by now.
Tubes don't get better by using them and nobody makes new tubes anymore.

They are still unmatched when it comes to colors contrast and response time

I prefer to use CRTs for Games/movies and LED for internet browsing and general computer use

>I replaced my CRT monitors with a LCD in 2011 and it paid itself within months

You know that is impossible right, user?

CRT tubes last for about 125-150K hours of usage, but require tuning up after about 25-30K hours. Most CRTs will outlast you.

>You know that is impossible right, user?
I paid 120 € for the LCD in the middle of 2011 and the power company refunded me about 150 € at the end of year and reduced the monthly payment by half.

You can use them for retro emulation.
For all the other uses is more convenient to just use your regular lcd monitor.

But you are right about black levels and contrast in general, colors look much more vivid on a crt and sharpness is very good as long as you don't go apeshit with the resolution compared to the monitor size and dpi and even there you can up the resolution in purpose to get some free antialiasing.
You can also get higher refresh rate out of crt monitors compared to lcd, but that's a no problem now with 120/144hz lcd (but those are expensive compared to a crt though)

>CRT tubes
cathode ray tube tubes? :^)
>last for about 125-150K hours of usage
Yeah, the last this long, but they look like shit after a few hundred hours already, because the phosphors wear out. No "tuning up" is going to change that.
>Most CRTs will outlast you.
I survived half a dozen CRTs. That shit was expensive, that's to the CRT cartel.

The difference in color, contrast, and response time between a CRT and the very best LED displays is imperceptible even when compared side-by-side, while scan lines on even the best CRTs are highly visible, which makes those LED displays objectively superior. But even outside that matchup, I feel that it's obvious that the differences between a good CRT and even a medium-high grade LED display are in the LED display's favor, as, in this matchup, color, contrast, and response time differences remain negligible while scan lines remain dramatic.

Of course this is all assuming your purpose is simple fidelity, and not replicating the original hardware that older games were designed for.

looks good.

>Yeah, the last this long, but they look like shit after a few hundred hours already, because the phosphors wear out. No "tuning up" is going to change that.
very unlikely the phosphors are wearing out, especially after a few hundred hours. I have two of the same monitor (bvm d14h5u) and one has about 2.4K hours, while the other has 83K hours. The difference? I didn't notice one. If you are having visual issues, it's more likely the capacitors than anything.

>while scan lines on even the best CRTs are highly visible, which makes those LED displays objectively superior
?

>scan lines
>highly visible
?

Only use crt for fighting games because tournaments and git gud scrub

>not having an fw900 that did 1440p in 2003