are there any LCD monitors that even come close to the feeling of a CRT? I plugged in my old CRT recently and it raped my 120hz IPS when it came to gaming picture clarity, I barely even want to play any games on it anymore because it just looks like a blurry mess compared to the CRT.
CRT isn't pic-related, otherwise I'd be using it instead.
Think it's funny how this CRT is better shit became more prevalent with niggers in 3rd getting internet.
Though they aren't solely to blame. Dumb nogs with "competitive" games like Smash and what not thing they have some edge.
CRTs have been outclassed since the mid 2000s.
If I had OP's pic related I'd be using it as my main monitor too.
goddamn i miss a good CRT.
watched The Last Broadcast on VHS on a 4:3 CRT the other day....
man...
Show me a single LCD with no input lag and motion blur, you can't.
CRTs haven't input lag, child. You're not beating the frame time.
>mfw my crt died 2 months ago and no spare parts to fix it
At least my Syncmaster 3n from 1995 is still going strong.
Ever since I got a 144hz with ULMB my Trinitron's been collecting dust in a closet.
All FW900s in existence are approaching their end of life. Widescreen CRTs are the ONLY reason they'd be worth using over a quality IPS monitor, and in a year there will be none left.
Not him but they are easily repairable, I have 3 in perfect condition, no coil noise or anything.
You hate to know how to maintain your tech.
>People on the internet only know the fw900.
Fucking consumer normies!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!111
Keep an eye out for parts.
I mostly just miss the 4:3 screens, including LCDs.
For arcade type games (MAME, etc.) the CRTs are ideal though.
>All FW900s in existence are approaching their end of life.
No.
>in a year there will be none left.
No.
In fact, just a week ago some website announced they'd purchase an abandoned warehouse somewhere in southern California and inside they discovered two very old tractor trailer containers and when they cracked 'em open (rusted shut) they found over 350 brand new in the box Sony FW900 monitors and a shitload of other Sony hardware from the late 1990s (most of it now useless).
Should be seeing a small flood of brand new FW900's on eBay here quite soon indeed. I already know the seller profile (hardware reseller that's been on eBay since 1999 and has like 2 million items sold with 99.9% good feedback.
Not sure what the pricing for the auctions will be but I figure at least $200 a pop + shipping. I've already got one with my name on it, just have to go pick it up this weekend.
HATERS GONNA HATE
Crt isn't a thing but a fucking meme
And this is coming from someone who used them for years
>Not sure what the pricing for the auctions will be but I figure at least $200 a pop
yea fucking right
LINK
INFO OF ANY SORT
user
No way man, if somebody had access to that shit they would price gouge and sell them one at a time, zero competition, learn to basic economics
I said AT LEAST $200 a pop since that's what I paid for the one I reserved, brand new, never opened, factory sealed since shipped from the factory.
And that's the AUCTION price, not Buy It Now - it will START at $200 and you can damned well bet the pricing will certainly go up fast as they are quite amazing displays, this will be my second one (current one was used of course, purchased in an estate sale a few years ago for $50). A brand new one for $200, it's worth the cost of traveling to San Diego this weekend to pick it up.
I SAID LINK YOU COCKSUCKER
ANY KIND OF INFO WOULD HELP
Why, so you can try to get in on the action? Yeah right.
You might as well say at least $1 then. You're an enormous faggot and a liar.
I know about it because I've done business with the seller and got a text about it and the offer to get one early because I'm a good customer, the auction is expected to start on Saturday so, keep checking eBay for "sony fw900" over the weekend and you'll find 'em.
Oh, and fuck you, jelly bastard.
what monitor do you have exactly?
Kek, I actually have a few FW900's in sealed boxes too, got them when a friend bought a property that used to be a computer shop, only using one myself, I'll wait for them to become even more expensive before I'll part with them.
It's a gamble, we have no idea how good OLED technology may end up being.
I got the PG278Q the first month it came out.
but crts are objectively less sharp than lcds
Retrofags, dipshit, they don't give a fuck about your OLED.
Does ULMB on your monitor have any adverse affects? Ive heard things about input lag and dimness/color loss.
>Does ULMB on your monitor have any adverse affects?
There is a bit of dimness but that's actually helpful as the default brightness is quite glaring.
Uh I guess. There's been an FW900 on sale on ebay for like the last 3 months for $1,200. How many retrofags do you think there are that are willing to spend more than that eventually?
They are going easily for 600-800€ right now
>there were already 1080p widescreen crt's in 1995
You mean 1440p
Yeah, but good luck running that 1080p or 1440p with anything then a ten thousand dollar workstation in 95.
The monitor itself MSRP was $2,500, I don't see your point.
LCD and even OLED will never look this good at 640x480. /vr/ was right about CRTs being the king of gaming displays.
I dunno, I'd say my 27" 5K wide gamut monitor has them pretty well beat.
Does that surprise you? Underage much?
No it does not. It just shows that LCD is inferior to CRT when it comes to multi-resolution support.
>even OLED
Have you ever seen an OLED TV? They have infinite contrast ratio and black looks exactly the same as when the TV is off.
All good until the blue diode degrades making it look like shit. That's probably after you suffering horrendous burn-in.
Yes, OLED has infinite contrast ratio but they still look blurry as fuck with older consoles. I have an 60" OLED TV and Wii looks like dogshit on it.
This
Show me a LCD monitor that has true blacks and whites while having avoiding input lag.
Good luck
do you really think the wii won't look like dogshit on a fucking 60 inch CRT?
>60 inch CRT
those don't even exist
>Wii
there's your problem. you simply don't use modern TV with older hardware.
for anything made since 2007 or something, OLED is awesome.
Pixel response is not input latency.
Yeah no fucking shit, those games were not designed to be played on 60" TV's, CRT or otherwise.
>16:9
Fucking CRT newfags
There was that 28" one but that was it
A Sony W900 (Not to be confused with FW900) will run 1600p@59Hz
Yes and your point?
he thinks he can tell the difference between a couple of ms of delay
The point I was trying to make was that OLED and LCD look bad on anything other than their designed resolution.
Look at these dumb Mexicans and indians. Fucking brown peaple.
CRTs are trash. The worst contrast ratio you can ever have.
What you dumb browns mix up is black levels vs white levls as contrast. Put ANY CRT to a ANSI spect test and it fails horribly. Complete shit.
This is why those of us who aren't underage or brown don't use CRTs. White text looks like shit.
>implying ANSI test matters in practical usage
When the monitor is displaying 50% white and 50% black at the same time, your eyes/brain will see the black as black even if the contrast ratio is quite low.
However, when you're watching a very dark show/movie or playing a dark game in low light, your pupils will dilate and you will be able to see any background glow easily. This is where good CRTs shine and LCDs fail miserably.
lcds have up to 250~ ms input lag on the worse ones, and still around 50-60 on the best ones.
it may not be much, but you can feel the difference, weather this fucks you or not is down to personal skill with the game.
High quality bait
...
Been using CRT since 90s till 2k5ish, jumping to a crappy TN LCD was a good move because it saved tons of wasted desk potential and emmited heat like a Chernobyl meltdown. Room is much cooler now.
The crt is used for my small backup pc as a temporary display, might buy a smaller sub 15inch lcd soon.
only thing crts are better than lcds at is off resolution display, they handle it far better than lcds do.
they also have the best response time with oleds only matching it.
honestly miss no ghosting, fucking hate motion blur with a passion, but due to lcd monitor i have it built into the hardware.
How new are you yourself? 1080p and 1440p are not only 16:9 resolutions.
Also the talk was about 95, the FW900 is early 00's
only older games that does quick strafing like quake or ut or older arena shooters gets affected, modern games does all the cover and fast forward moving 90% of the time will not be affected.
Its all about the games that you play with, plus with cutscenes and all those shitty camera effects, you think average player these days care about image accuracy ?
Dude, are you nuts? Even the cheap ones today have 1ms response time, input lag is something totally different.
ANSI is American National Standards Institute you fucking 3rd world shitters.
>resolution display
yes and no, for its own native resolution yes.
Other than that it needs calibration time to time if you want above average color quality.
Not to mention some requires adjustment here and there.
The disadvantage outweighs the advantage for normal tasks, which is browser, file explorer, or even gaming.
Usually people who works with lots of photo prefer them over LCDs but nowadays with shitty effect in place, you no longer need a accurate display as much as before.
Who gives a shit!?
I was on about the W900. that came out 96/97
The fact still stands that older widescreen monitors are usually in 16:10 format.
As stated, It was more or less unreal to get a workstation that worked with such resolutions back then.
If they could make displays in 96/97 that still display 1600p wonderfully today imagine what CRT technology could be like right now?
4k 4:3 resolutions 240hz chromatic 3d with DVGA input with convex surface screen @ 350w consumption and 105c operating temperature.
>display 1600p wonderfully
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. The W900, and the FW900 as well, do not have anywhere near 2560 grille stripes. I forget the exact numbers but I think they're somewhere around 1800 stripes. They can't even display 1920x1200 without some loss let alone higher.
I turn almost all that shit off, also dont play many cover based shooters.
you are thinking response time, not input lag.
also, that response time is fucking bullshit otherwise the ghosting would not be perceivable.
gaming, i like to sit back, recline, i hate sitting up straight to play a game, with a crt this was easily doable. I have a tn panel as my monitor, and leaning back means any dark area in a game is now completely black, I have access to one of the best ips monitors you can get before you go into pro monitors for accuracy, and looking at it from a reclined position its still fucking off enough to make everything look black.
Now, personally, the most important thing in a monitor isn't color accuracy, its contrast. this is the single biggest thing you will notice in how the monitor displays a color, its honestly amazing how off a monitor can be color wise and you dont notice it, but contrast is one thing you will always notice more pronounced.
after that comes fps, having seen a 60 and 144 right next to each other, jesus, you would never know how bad just doing normal tasks on a 60 hrz is.
i put free sync/gsync above fps when the range is down to 20 and up to max the display can show, this is because it effects when the monitor shows a new frame, holy shit, i never knew 20~fps (we down clocked the gpu to get this) would feel so good, and this is coming from playing ar around 120fps a few minutes before.
then color accuracy, personally, well calibrated tn will match most ips that a consumer would pick up, so for me, its not to much of an issue, at least not a 'holy shit, this would be worth dropping 500~$ on' as i was considering a few months back. either my monitor, a syncmaster t240hd is just that good of a tn display, or ips are way to fucking overhyped, im not sure which anymore.
and then resolution, as the most noticeable thing, so long as you have about 100ppi you are good.
>Even the cheap ones today have 1ms response time, input lag is something totally different.
>you are thinking response time, not input lag.
>1ms response time
>input lag is something totally different
Are you special by any change?
>input lag is something totally different
Not the same user but just a quick tech lesson.
tftcentral.co.uk
>For LCD screens this should not be confused with pixel response time which describes the speed at which a pixel can change from one orientation to another.
>by any change?
>change
Holy shit you're stupid, I'm trying to tell you that response time is non related to input lag.
>blur
>blur
>blur
get one with a strobe backlight ("lightboost")
youtube.com
>colors
>input lag
crt still wins here
Not yet.
LG will be able to beat cheaper CRTs soon with W-OLED monitors.
RGB OLED can beat it now, but won't look so hot after a year of use, so unless you're happy to buy a new $5000 monitor yearly, they don't really beat it yet.
We're getting there OP.
TFT LCD is objectively shit compared to CRT in every technical aspect bar Radiation emittance, however the consumer (myself included) decided that other factors like footprint, weight and price were more important that a pure specs only comparison.
Soon we'll be able to have both worlds.
And just in case some autismo can't read properly: I'm not implying we should move back to CRTs, that would be the stupidest idea ever.
Plasma is still really nice but has it's own drawbacks.
And pixel density is a joke
It's a nice tv turned into monitor
>I'm not implying we should move back to CRTs
Move back to SED
Shame it's fixed rez though
>60" inch TV
>Why do my old consoles look blurry
You would need an emulator to upscale that shit
Say what you want m8 my W900 seems to somehow display 1600p perfectly.
I can have a 6px font display fine.
Then its a good job novelty size cooling equipment is commonplace in ICT today.
>I'm trying to tell you that response time is non related to input lag.
Can you fail a bit more at basic reading comprehension?
>Not the same user
>response time is non related to input lag.
Which is what said but you responded with ridicule in which indicates disagreement, ie. you are NOT saying they are "non related"[sic] unless you insult people when they agree with you?
>Move back to SED
If only.
Maybe once all the patents are bust, AUO will try for it.
If it works out you know Samsung will be on that shit so fast, but only if someone else manages to commercialize it first and there isn't any patent trouble.
Canon can't do it anymore, they're broke as fuck.
Sony can't do it anymore due to being broke as fuck and selling off the FED patents (using the expired SED patents, might leave them liable to AUO due to similarity)
LG seemingly doesn't care, even W-OLED progress is slow as they're happy selling everyone shitty 1000:1 79% sRGB IPS panels...
CRT's weren't outclasses in mid 2000's. I'd hesitate to say they are on par or better nowadays too.
No there's not
OLED
>Fixed Pixel Dogshit(i.e anything other than native resolution looks like dogshit)
>Blue Diode Degradation
>IR/Burn-in Problems
>Input Lag
>Sample-and-Hold Blur
>Weak Uniformity
>Problems with near-black colors not displaying correctly
OLED is just another Plasma
Reminder that we will NEVER EVER have Laser Beam Steering TV's because Microvision/Sony are a bunch of faggots who prefer to let that godtier tech rot in shitty Mobile Projectors that no-one but hipster care about
There is no reason to pay $200 for an obsolete hunk of junk that was sitting in a humid warehouse rusting for decades.
Yes, the FW900 is a pretty good piece of technology even today but at the prices they go for (some idiot on CL was trying to offload two for $600 each), you can easily purchase a quality IPS monitor that matches the performance of it for half the cost.
Unless you have a niche need for a CRT like playing very old games, its blind nostalgia.
>Fixed Pixel Dogshit(i.e anything other than native resolution looks like dogshit)
True
>Blue Diode Degradation
True
>IR/Burn-in Problems
CRTs burn in as well
>Input Lag
Only on non-native resolutions
>Sample-and-Hold Blur
Only applies to certain video formats
>Weak Uniformity
Good ones don't have that problem
>Problems with near-black colors not displaying correctly
Same as above
OLED shits on any and all forms of LCD, but CRT is still better than both due to non-fixed pixels and zero input/display lag.
>not posting a macro photograph
I really don't doubt you that it's good enough in practice. I just wish I could see it for myself.
It seems like the W900 has a variable grille pitch from .25mm in the center to .28mm at the edges, which makes it impossible to calculate the exact number of stripes. However, if we just assume an average of a .265mm grille pitch and a width of 484cm (based on a 22.5" viewable diagonal) we end up with about 1,826 stripes. At 2560 horizontal resolution you're exceeding the physical resolution of the CRT by about 40%, which is pretty huge.
>imperfect geometry
>low resolutions (you will never have 4k or 5k on a CRT)
>less sharpness than an LCD
>worse real world contrast due to the fact the phosphors reflect and scatter incoming light
>newest consumer CRTs are all old and have tubes that are slowly dying
>huge waste of energy
>hot
>can't do anything better than sRGB
>low brightness, easily made unusable by sunlight
It's not 2003 anymore, LCDs have improved beyond the capabilities of CRTs. The only things CRTs have going for it are the ability to change resolutions and better motion quality than most LCDs.
No IPS LCD can come close to dark room black level performance of a good CRT or the motion performance of a good CRT.
Some VA LCDs can come close with dark room black levels nowadays, but not motion and they have other drawbacks.
Some TN LCDs can come close with motion performance, but have terrible black levels like IPS plus the usual TN drawbacks (vertical viewing angle shift, 6 bits per channel, etc.)
>dark room black level performance
The apparent contrast of a modern, high quality LCD will look better than a CRT in a lit room. Most people aren't using their computers in a pitch black room with a felt monitor hood.
>lit room
OF course, that's why I specified dark room. I do my computing in a lit room 99% of the time, but I just wish I could enjoy a dark game or dark movie without backlight glow once in a while, and that's just not possible with an IPS or TN LCD.
You might know that, but most CReTards don't. Too many people on Sup Forums are spewing how much better CRTs are without having any clue what they're talking about.
>Only applies to certain video formats
No
Do you even know what Sample and Hold blur means?
en.wikipedia.org
This is the same thing as in LCD's...Lightboost fixes this to some degree with strobing but it depends on your framerate/hertzrate/stroberate
>Only on non-native resolutions
No
OLED suffers from input lag same way LCD's do
There's a ton of digital processing there
There's no zero input lag like in CRT's
>CRT's burn in as well
This was never a big problem with CRT's like it was with Plasmas and now OLED
It's not better than LCD 2bh
LCD's still do some things better like higher brightness,less input lag,no IR Problems,no blue diode issues and also so far only LCD's have Lightboost on consumer LCD Monitors
Sorry for noon comment, but what's CRT?
>CRTs
Yeah I remember those days back in 90s and early 00s, sitting in front of those blurry, flickering, back breaking massive, overpriced screens that always had settings screwed. It felt like facing exposed Tsernobyl core too. I swear I got tan front side after playing Baldur's Gate II for 2 weeks. The images burned to the screen and you had to switch those porn windows quickly or face pissed off dad.
I think I got glaucoma because of those devil's boxes and two herniated discs.
Yeah I know what you mean.
Even the best anti-glare CRTs have enough reflectivity to make their black level effectively worse than any modern LCD in a lit room. I don't recall finding it bothersome back when I had a CRT, but maybe it would now if I actually went back to CRT (if only I could get a hold of a good one). Ideally, I'd use a good CRT only for gaming and my LCD for everything else, but even if I could find a good CRT I don't have space for multiple setups and it just wouldn't be practical.
CRT is better at the important stuff like
>Color accuracy
>No sample-and-hold blur
>Deep black levels
>No input lag
>Very good contrast
>Multi-resolutions capability
>etc.
Nobody is claiming CRT's are the best for office or work(unless you're a photo editor than a professional-tier CRT Monitor is still the best choice by far)
>Color accuracy
This one is just a false meme. High end LCDs have been calibrate-able to virtually perfect accuracy for over a decade.
Everything else is true as long as you keep in mind that the black level advantage is only in a dark room.
how does it feel to be mentally retarded?
