CRT Monitors

DragonQ said:
I'm not even sure that's true. Different numbers from different sources would both agree and disagree with that. LCDs that quote ridiculous contrast ratios of 1,000,000:1 are obviously lying but measured contrast ratios of 1000:1 aren't unheard of among LCDs and that's higher than some sources I can find regarding CRTs' real-world contrast ratio. It's also variable with a CRT and they suffer from worse reflections (compared to matte LCDs anyway), which would reduce the visible contrast ratio.
Click to expand...
Those LCDs at 1,000,000:1 are not lying they are using a different measuring system which is dynamic contrast ratio. While the 1000:1 is none dynamic contrast ratio and the two cannot be compared. Every screen has both dynamic and none dynamic its just dynamic is higher so company's started using that one as it sounds better for marketing even though what most of us care about is the none dynamic ratio.

It was true when LCD first came out that CRT had better colours, ratios and most things but I agree with you that's not correct anymore. IPS screens are ahead of any CRT I owned in everything apart from MS response time.
 
Ah yes, dynamic contrast ratio. Is that where the backlight level adjusts depending on what's on-screen? There are some TVs in my local pub that have this enabled and it's terrible. Every time a dark scene appears the whole screen gets dimmer, but it's really obvious when it happens because there's a delay which makes it look stupid. So the screen shows the dark screen, then like half a second later it gets darker. :D

But yes, I was talking about standard contrast ratio.
 
Good CRTs are becoming rarer and more expensive over time as supply goes down and demand goes up, I.E a used Sony FW900 will cost you over a thousand pounds on eBay these days.

One of the main reasons for this is that games made prior to around 1996 didn't normally have an option for the user to select a custom resolution, they simply either played at a fixed resolution or had a specific list of usable resolutions. This means that on a TFT screen any retro game of this type will look awful due to running outside the native resolution of the screen and causing pixels to be displayed incorrectly. As a result of this retro PC gamers have caused quality CRT screens to become as valued as some retro consoles. I personally use a CRT screen on my modified Pentium 3 era Compaq system running Windows 98 that I use for all my old gaming because the 80's/90's games simply look much better than on a modern screen.
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
Ah yes, dynamic contrast ratio. Is that where the backlight level adjusts depending on what's on-screen? There are some TVs in my local pub that have this enabled and it's terrible.
Click to expand...
A lot of TVs these days are just terrible in general, they just seem to try and sell them based on the buzzwords from their spec sheet and people fall for it.

Earlier this month my mate invited me round to check out his new 4K TV and it's a complete piece of garbage. My seven year old plasma has better image quality, looks just as sharp from the couch and cost less lol.
 
Still miss my 19' Mitsubishi Diamond Pro (1600x1200@75hz) :(

Not so much for modern gaming but for the aspect ratio and IQ for emulation of older systems.

You can apply all the fancy CRT shaders you like to stuff in Mame and the rest but old school 8bit & 16bit games will never look as good as they do on a proper CRT screen, not to mention the horrendous input lag that modern LCD's inflict on retro titles.
 
sadbuttrue said:
If a CRT has been used even moderately for the last 20 years it's going to have issues, so don't overpay without checking it first. Some can command quite a premium these days.

I was a die-hard CRT user, having had 3 Sony FW900 monitors over the years. I've joined the wonderful world of motion blur LCDs and given up competitive gaming as a result.

Scroll down to the VGA monitor list - all of these will do high refresh rates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/wiki/speclist
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I'll keep any eye out for any of those :)
 
ubersonic said:
Good CRTs are becoming rarer and more expensive over time as supply goes down and demand goes up, I.E a used Sony FW900 will cost you over a thousand pounds on eBay these days.

One of the main reasons for this is that games made prior to around 1996 didn't normally have an option for the user to select a custom resolution, they simply either played at a fixed resolution or had a specific list of usable resolutions. This means that on a TFT screen any retro game of this type will look awful due to running outside the native resolution of the screen and causing pixels to be displayed incorrectly. As a result of this retro PC gamers have caused quality CRT screens to become as valued as some retro consoles. I personally use a CRT screen on my modified Pentium 3 era Compaq system running Windows 98 that I use for all my old gaming because the 80's/90's games simply look much better than on a modern screen.
Click to expand...

I've emailed around in work to see if anyone's got any old CRT monitors they're looking to get rid of. Our Operations manager threw away an FW900 when he moved house a few years back :(
 
VTR said:
Our Operations manager threw away an FW900 when he moved house a few years back :(
Click to expand...

IBM XT system complete with Model-M keyboard.
Hitachi HL-512 8086 "laptop" system
MB Vectrex
Master System 1 & 2

These are just some of the "worthless" things that have gone into my bin over the years /cry.
 
TFTs have closed the gap a bit in recent years with higher refresh rates and lower response times, plus larger screens becoming more affordable but I'd still like a decent CRT. I used to run dual monitors, one TFT for general usage and one old CRT for gaming but once I got a 120hz panel I decided to ditch the CRT as it was a bit less hassle.

One downside to TFTs I rarely see mentioned is the fact they need to be run in native resolution to look their best, this is a contrast to CRT where you have more flexibility i.e. if a game is performing badly then you could drop the resolution without it causing major distortion or not filling the screen.

I think most people forget how terrible TFTs used to be until about 10 years ago:
-Expensive if you wanted anything bigger than 17"
-Typically 5:4 1280x1024 yuck
-Poor response time
-60hz
-Native resolution issues
 
HangTime said:
One downside to TFTs I rarely see mentioned is the fact they need to be run in native resolution to look their best, this is a contrast to CRT where you have more flexibility i.e. if a game is performing badly then you could drop the resolution without it causing major distortion or not filling the screen.
Click to expand...
This is why a lot of newer games include native scaling. You can keep your resolution at your panel's native resolution whilst reducing the resolution the in-game action is rendered in. Improves performance whilst not relying on your monitor's (likely terrible) scaler. It also has the added bonus of not making things like UI elements look blurry (since they still render at native resolution) and it also doesn't require switching resolutions when alt-tabbing, etc.

HangTime said:
I think most people forget how terrible TFTs used to be until about 10 years ago:
-Expensive if you wanted anything bigger than 17"
-Typically 5:4 1280x1024 yuck
-Poor response time
-60hz
-Native resolution issues
Click to expand...
I certainly don't. I still have my first TFT actually, sitting under the stairs as an emergency monitor if I can't access my server remotely for whatever reason. It's pretty terrible. :)
 
They had their strong points, but they were much more fatiguing, even at high refresh rates. Bad for your eyes too. I reckon 3 or 4 years of office use left it's mark on my eyesight. Might as well stick your eyeballs in a microwave than sit in front of one of those things for a day.
 
I used to have 2 Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB

1 was my first OC purchase :D
Date ordered: 14/07/2004 11:59:00

£193.00+VAT x 1 - Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB 19" - Black (MO-007-MB)

Sub-Total: £193.00
Shipping: £30.25 (Saturday) Not cheap. :)
VAT: £39.07
Total: £262.32

And only since I got the DELL S2716DG 27 have I been satisfied that it is better for my uses over CRT, Gsync an 120-144 refresh on 2560x1440 with 1ms response does the job well. TN is still the best LCD tech if you are over sensitive to blur/ghosting/response. Colour wise it's very good for a TN and pretty close to the CRT.

I still have a 21" CRT Mitsubishi Diamond Pro as my 2nd screen at work along side a Dell U2410.
 
I have one of these based on Mitsubishi Diamondtron tech http://www.everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/apple_studio_display_17.html

studio17-2.jpg



Looking for a loving home. Free to take from east london or for a fiver if you're feeling generous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom