CRT

>The G400's technical specifications are well up to scratch. It can do 800 by 600 at a frankly ludicrous 160Hz refresh rate, and stays above 100Hz for 1024 by 768 and 1280 by 1024. For 1600 by 1200, it can do 87Hz, which is still well above the flicker line.

>The G400 supports a maximum resolution of a rather imposing 1800 by 1440 pixels. It only has a 0.24mm aperture grille pitch.

Why were CRT monitors so far ahead of their time? It took nearly 15 years for LCD/LED technology to meet the same performance specs.

Just imagine how advanced of a CRT we could have if the technology wasn't abandoned.

Imagine a multiple photon gun based picture array with ultra-thin gorilla glass tube weighing 80% less than a traditional Trinitron tube.

I have a G400.

My LaCie can do 2048x1536 at 86 Hz tough.

because you needed those hertz to keep your eyes happy. ordinary people couldn't handle 60hz crt, it was blinking and shit. of course you could get used to it, but still, refresh rate in crts was need, not feature

>ordinary people couldn't handle 60hz crt, it was blinking and shit.
Holy shit, how in the world did PAL TVs ever become so popular?!

CRT's would be pretty advanced if they were still made. The primary advantage of LCD's for offices are low power consumption and it's easier to read text. A 720p LCD will generally look crisper than a 720p CRT. Unfortunately consumers fell for the LCD meme as well, even though CRT TV's had better blacks and colors than LCD's, and of course less motion blur.

No better alternative existed. Nice TVs had phosphorus with slower decay times, to reduce flicker, but the cheap ones flickered like crazy.

Euros love to get cucked, that include technology

To be fair a lot of early LCD monitors were also 75Hz, espeically the 5:4 and 16:10 ones since they weren't the same panels used by TV's. It wasn't until the 1080p/60 meme took off that 60Hz became the norm on PC monitors. Panel manufactures got cheap and lazy and stopped making good PC monitors unless you shelled out $1000. 60Hz is trash on the desktop and never should have been the standard.

You do realize American TVs run at 60Hz?
Americans love to show how dumb they are, that includes showing of their tech illiteracy.

>inb4 free (You)

And PAL is 50Hz yuropoor

What's worse is that people still think locked refresh rates are okay.
A-sync should be the norm now. It makes no sense to have the computer feed the display frames, the display should accept frames from the computer.

Thanks for the (You).
50Hz with superior resolution, SCART (and RGB over it) and PAL60.
Not to mention, native NTSC support on almost every set made from the early 90's onward.

Americans are so gullible. Got cucked by RCA so hard.

>SED prototype was 240Hz, Full-HD, 1ms response time (potentially 0.2ms), 450 cd/m2, 50k:1 contrast (potentially 100k:1) with 178 degree lossless viewing angles
>using less power and being flatter than modern flattest and most power efficient displays
>in fucking 2006
It will have its comeback. You'll see.

Pics? Source?
I'm genuinely interested.

Google "SED".
It's short for "Surface-conduction electron-emitter display".

More or less what OP imagined as "multiple photon gun based picture array with ultra-thin gorilla glass tube weighing 80% less than a traditional Trinitron tube".
It already happened and proved too good to be true. Got patent-blocked. Capitalism at its finest.

oh my god I just came a little

That's a sweet idea.

O B S E S S E D

B

S

E

S

S

E

D

>bought a 1280x1024@60Hz CRT TV on Craigslist a few months ago
>just found a 1600x1200@75Hz one
Damn, that sounds sweet but I don't have enough room for all this shit. Neat that you can find good stuff pretty cheap.

Living in my house, I'm hoarding them left and right.
Usually I have the old school CRTs for older systems, SVGA 14" monitors with huge curvatures and consumer Trinitrons. Those I don't throw away.
Then I have the professional VGA monitors and workstation screens, those I have a dozen that aren't in use, those I just throw out if I find a better one and only keep the best ones in storage (that aren't used by anything).
There are so many monitors for so cheap or even free, this is getting bothersome quick tough.

Reporting in with my sony gdm-fw900 in 2017. Works great with my 980ti and i can max graphics to highest on everything bc i only need 85hz to get motion blurred free gameplay. It was a bitch to find these monitors though. it was worth it.

how much. are you the guy that got it for $100 a few months ago?

$200 for fucking 5 of them. 4 working. 1 with a malfunction. Super lucky. I've sold 3 of them at $700 each with $300 freight shipping (all arrived OK). Selling the malfunctioning one for $150 and keeping one with a slight scratch for myself.

>fw900
Why do people like it again? Because of the aspect ratio?
As far as CRTs go, they were really bad as CRTs, Sony made lots of compromises to make them. Even compared to their own much older Trinitron VGA monitors.

jesus what a fucking steal!

I don't believe that. 1920x1200 at 85hz

or 1440p at 70hz for a 24" CRT.

There is a lot to love about them.

>implying people would still buy them for the meme prices when you can get one for exactly 10 times less when you wait a month and look daily
why would you lie on the internet?

They aren't as cheap in the US.
Isn't hard to believe knowing retards buy Model M's for "meme prices" as well.

I got one in a pawn shop for 20 bucks.

Its not really a meme price. These are pretty rare. People do tend to get mad at me when they are about the luck I fell into with these. Its true you MAY be able to find one with waiting and looking but they are increasingly rare by the day. Of course I sold them. What am I going to do with fucking 5 of them? I only need 1 really. Use it until it dies and hope LCDs or OLED's have caught up eventually.

Model-M's are really well build keyboards. IBM made good stuff back then. I bought a Unicomp modern Model-M and the switches were much crisper but the build quality were atrocious. I still kept it and will be selling my Model-M. The keys are kind mushy. But I can see why people like them. Part of it is nostalgia part is the IBM brand and quality that used to come with 80 and early 90's computing products. When computing became a commodity, things went down hill in terms of build quality.

Sorry my spelling and grammar is shit. I sound like a retard. Better get some coffee.

>People do tend to get mad at me when they are about the luck I fell into with these.
Oh, sure thing, if they where that rare as you keep trying to imply to begin with.

this is some sad shit
hope the idea that people might believe you makes you actually feel better in your own mind

They were several thousand dollars a pop when they came out. Mosly used by companies for CAD design. The ones I came across came from General Motors who had previously used them for CAD.

They weren't a common consumer product, which is why most people still think of CRT's are shitty 800x600 1024x760 17" box thats ate up too much desk space. These 16:10 computer CRTs are not a common item. I don't have any more to sell so I have no stake here. I have one malfunctioning one thats it and the one I am keeping.

Don't get all buttmad cause you're stuck with your 144hz shitty TN monitor that looks like trash.

No thanks, a IPS adaptive sync panel is what I use. I don't need to buy one (or 5) for 200 bucks for gaming because I can't afford a proper panel.
I say that as a person who has one connected up to their SGI machine for years. I already commented how bad they are compared to Sony's own 4:3 CRTs.

why don't you overclock there hardware Sup Forums?

I've dealt with a plethora of modern panels. They all have their downsides. The only downsides of the high end CRT's is their power consumption, desk space, and weight. All of which are fairly easy to deal with.

You sound like you don't know what you're talking about honestly. That's not a 4:3 CRT. Of course a moden LCD may have some utility than a older 4:3 consumer desktop CRT.

All LCD has inherit lag and delay in switching their pixels up. IPS has been getting better, but it still looks like shit. Sure the colors are vibrant but it can't do pixel depth or blacks worth a shit. Which really affects a lot of applications and games. There is no true variable resolution changes, just stretching with LCD panels. The technology isn't really improving much either. The new trend in LCD's is to market to GAMERZZ with LED and gay aesthetics.

IPS is not bad though, but its still not comparable to a CRT, sorry. We'll have to hope a new techonlogy comes along and catches up with the market like OLED before we can have a display that doesn't completely suck. All of them have their problems right now. Good CRT's do not really have too many compromises though. They're just tough to get a hold of.

I only have a shitty emachines CRT monitor that does 1280x1024 at 85Hz. I would buy a better CRT but they're just so expensive. I have a couple of 1280x1024 75Hz LCD displays that I use with my desktop that take up less room and the image quality is better on them.

ULMB is the only decent technology for LCD's that is any kind of band aid for their refresh delays. That came from the Lightboost set of early monitors. Gsync ala Nsync isn't worth the premium. You can feel the lag in the game still and the throttling happening on the backend. Its not worth the premium.

Wonder how long that behemoth is going to last you. those things are reaching their end-of-life.

Some asshat was selling them for fucking $700 on CL... only time I ever saw one local (fuck shipping something like that). Everyone that's selling those eye cancer tubes knows there are gullible CRT meme fools who are willing to pay big bucks for them.

>You sound like you don't know what you're talking about honestly. That's not a 4:3 CRT.
Did you hit your head as a baby?

See >I already commented how bad they are compared to Sony's own 4:3 CRTs.
I was talking about

Do CRT fags actually think that CRTs do perfect blacks?
Do they actually think modern panels have anything then sub millisecond output lag that they can actually differentiate between it and a CRT?

Some people are willing to pay that for a scarce out of production high end CRT. Its really just common sense. Sure you can find people offloading them for $200, and thats a good price, but some people cannot find them in some regions. If you can find a way to get them there safely, thats to your benefit and theirs.

I don't suspect it'll last a long time but you never know. I haven't had many issues with any of them actually. Only one out of the lot would occasionally flicker and that only happened once or twice. Can't blame them. Its a fucking electron gun based off 1930's technology shooting electrons in your face. Its absurd. Its more absurd that in 2017 we don't have anything available that can beat it.

Stop talking nonsense because you can't find or afford one. it doesn't change the objective argument that for some purposes, CRTs are simply better. Motion, blacks, color depth, refresh rates.

LCD's have their strengths... energy consumption, heat, desk space, cheap production, and clear text.

You can spend less and get a better monitor. Ultra high end flat-screen monitors beat the shit out of CRTs and cost the same... sometimes even less than the asking price of a FW900. There's literally no point in buying a 17-year-old hunk of junk other than "muh better resolutions."

Unless you're doing some niche thing like playing old ultra low res games or some shit it's pointless.

>t. someone too poor to afford OLED

>IPS is not bad though, but its still not comparable to a CRT, sorry.
Let's see, adaptive sync, higher refresh rate at the same resolution as your (FW900) maximum resolution, bigger panel, color calibrated.
Also why on Earth would you stretch when you can run things at native resolutions, perfectly integer scaled resolution or just in a letterbox?

Sorry, it sounds more hipster to me then worth it, you don't have to be so defensive, I'm a person who owns and appreciates CRTs, you don't have to fanboy them.
They have their uses.

Yes actually. That was my first memory actually. Which makes it sad that I'm making more sense than you are.

I'll break it down for you since you can't understand it. The default state of a CRT is black. It shoots electrons at phosphors to make colors. So it does quite literally have perfect blacks. It is the normal state of the display, off.

LCD's have a white blacklight / strobelight. The only way they have to produce blacks is to send electricity to all three RGB pixels to generate a black like pixel that is attempting to block white (back) light from going to your eyes. Its default state is white. It can't do blacks worth a shit, retard.

Now I'd like an explanation as to whats so fucking hard to understand that you fucking numales. Jesus you guys are fags. Do some research into how shit works and you won't sound like blithering brainlets.

>I'll break it down for you since you can't understand it. The default state of a CRT is black. It shoots electrons at phosphors to make colors. So it does quite literally have perfect blacks. It is the normal state of the display, off.
yeah
lets forget about the glow and bleed

>LCD's have a white blacklight / strobelight. The only way they have to produce blacks is to send electricity to all three RGB pixels to generate a black like pixel that is attempting to block white (back) light from going to your eyes. Its default state is white. It can't do blacks worth a shit, retard.
never heard of OLED I see

If only i could find a 16:9 one that could do over full hd native and at least 85hz i would buy

Actually, you can't. thus the CRT. Unless you have some backwards definition of "better".

>Yes actually. That was my first memory actually. Which makes it sad that I'm making more sense than you are.
Oh, reading comprehension okay.
I said:
>I already commented how bad they are compared to Sony's own 4:3 CRTs.
Let me rephrase that.
I already posted () how bad they (the FW900) are compared to even Sony's own 4:3 CRTs. (Because the compromises they had to make when making the FW900 widescreen.)

You're being weird user. Get your coffee.

You'd need a 1440p/165Hz panel with ULMB to come close, and even then you get the choice of IPS' shitty blacks or TN's shitty colors. It's stupid that you have to pay $700 to get a monitor with roughly equivalent specs to a monitor that came out over a decade ago.

Which isn't really even out on the market yet. Look up the UP3017Q. It would have been an interesting monitor. But here you are once again, showing us all that you know not what you talk of.


Higher refresh rate yet less smoothness. Look up how LCD pixels change their states. Its all a physical motion of crystals. Its true they're getting better though.

Lets hear about more of your meme technologys you've been sold on by marketing to justify the outrageous cost of your LCD. Adaptive Sync? GSync / Freesync? 3d? ULMB? A bunch of USB hubs on the monitor? Yeah... OK... What a bunch of gimmicks to justify a lame panel technology for motion / gaming. if you're an office worker justifying that LCD gives you more desk space and is more ergonomic and efficient, sure. Thats ultimately the reason they've been thrust upon us. They're cheap. Thats really about all they are superior in.

Which are finally available. I had the S2417DG I used this week, it looks really good. I liked it, but still it isn't as good. But if I had to compromise, which I don't because I actually went out and found and bought some, unlike the lot of uneducated crybabies in this thread. There is no well rounded LCD out there. Its always a compromise and because of that, they sort of suck in some important ways.

I'm returning the S2417DG. Its nice but I'm better off waiting for the Sony CRT to die out and then seeing if there is a panel that doesnt suck available in 5 - 10 years.

The S2716DG was nice too, personally I liked the crispness of the 24inch version more, the S2417DG