I have mostly analog but I also have a Syncmaster 955mb. Its got pretty good picture and its digital. But I have a good MaxTech analog monitor from 96 and its friggin epic. Sharper than my syncmaster.

The problem with older monitors is that the tube is more likely to have big hours on it which translates to low brightness.

IMO aperture mask CRTs have the wrong look for DOS games, so I'd go for the freshest conventional shadow mask CRT you can find, irrespective of age. Boxed NOS is ideal.

I like small-sized shadow masks with "terrible" (.39mm horizontal) dot pitch. Perfect for 320x200!

I have a LG 701S with digital controls and it has a pretty good picture. It doesn't look too sharp but not too "fuzzy" either.

I use three monitors: a 24" TFT, a 19" aperture mask CRT from ~2001, and a very primitive 14" CRT from ~1992. All connected to my three retro PCs via VGA matrix (a combined switch/splitter which lets me assign any source to any screen). So, even if none of my screens is perfect, I can choose the one best suited for the task, or just use all screens simultaneously.

As bjt mentioned above, the best CRTs are the ones that haven't been used much. Also, big, high-quality aperture mask CRTs from the 2000s age a lot faster than small, crappy shadow mask monitors from the 1990s.

I took some pictures once to compare a few shadow mask CRTs:

21" Eizo: http://i.imgur.com/WDH4mjJ.jpg
19" Philips: http://i.imgur.com/IhdVPYk.jpg
17" Philips: http://i.imgur.com/H5p1irg.jpg
14" HP/Samtron: http://i.imgur.com/UB9sn6S.jpg

Obviously the HP wins for low-res stuff (640x480 and below). Here's another pic to show it's awesomeness: http://i.imgur.com/N1CdJgf.jpg

What about 90's sharp looking CRT?

I always prefer sharp displays . But obviously you can't generalise between decades and CRT quality 100%.

for instance my Apple Studio Display from 1999 (which apparently is just a rebranded Mitsubishi diamond display) , looks a fair bit nicer than the monitor I had in the early 2000s (if I remember correctly I think I switched to LCD for my main PC in 2005)

I always liked the smaller CRTs for just looking sharper actually. On 13" / 14" things are more condensed: on >= 17" 320X200 pixels are huge.

I generally favor the later FD Trinitron and Diamondtron NF aperture grille sets, especially the 21" and up models...when they actually work.

Those that do work usually have some serious color balance issues, along with the G2 voltage creeping up and making black look like dark grey. Even then, better hope the color guns don't go shorting or the image goes popping, because that could mean a flyback transformer whose days are numbered. *glares at dead FW900*

The only time I might actually want an older CRT is when we're talking certain old Sony PVMs, NEC MultiSync XM29/XP29/XV29 variants or Wells-Gardner arcade monitors that can accept a 15 KHz RGB signal natively. Scanlines tend to look better on 'em, and needing a scandoubler just to get a pure signal out of an old console or most old non-PC computers (Amiga, X68000, etc.) is a pain.

I've actually got an XV29 Plus, but what keeps me from using it is that the geometry is screwed beyond what the OSD allows for adjustment and I have no idea how to correct it.

For me, sharper is always better, but in 'grades' (mainly dot pitch and gun type). As NamelessPlayer said above, for 15kHz 240p video you really want a proper low definition tube, upscaling to higher resolution displays is a pain and it never looks quite right. 'Fuzzy' should be a limitation of the phosphor dot pitch and not of the electron beam focusing system.

For 200~350 line games I really like my Samsung CVL4955 VGA monitor with its horrid TV-like dot pitch and PIL gun system, things look less blocky and more 'organic', but not fuzzy as in a poorly focused display. It is capable of 640x480 but it is bordeline unusable. Some more pictures and comparison/action shots here.

For 400~600 line stuff I prefer this IBM SVGA monitor which looks very sharp but isn't capable of progressive XGA resolution.

Both tubes are very different and I believe they complement each other. Another thing I consider important is true monochrome displays for things like 80 column CGA composite.

Here are some more comparisons between the Samsung(PIL) and the IBM(Delta) (huge unedited pictures):
Alley Cat side-by-side (PIL on the left, Delta on the right)

Catacomb 3D on the PIL tube
Catacomb 3D on the Delta tube

Math Rescue Plus on the PIL tube
Math Rescue Plus on the Delta tube

Math Rescue Plus on the PIL tube
Math Rescue Plus on the Delta tube

the colour saturation (at least to my eyes) on that Samsung is actually quite nice on the low colour games where sharpness isn't an issue.

btw what camera are you using to film the screen? any camera Ive tried makes it look worse than it is.

Yeah same here, I would like to know how you guys get such nice pictures of your screens. Mine always turn out blueish and over exposed.

Eizo and Iiyama are great as well.

Darkman wrote:

the colour saturation (at least to my eyes) on that Samsung is actually quite nice on the low colour games where sharpness isn't an issue.

Agreed, things like low-color shading/dithering effects look so much better, aside from the overall 'warmer' look. I quite like it. 😀

Darkman wrote:

btw what camera are you using to film the screen? any camera Ive tried makes it look worse than it is.

For the above shots I cheated a bit by borrowing my sister's DSLR (Nikon D5000), being able to set everything manually and consistently works wonders. I'm no pro photographer but with practice I've become quite good at photographing CRTs with an ordinary point-and-shoot camera, for all my pictures I use an old beat-up Coolpix L11.

Some tips:

• Use a tripod!
• Fiddling with the exposure control can help to get rid of refresh lines and washed out pictures. In extreme cases brightness and contrast might need to be altered.
• Depending on the picture content ambient lighting must be adjusted. Mostly black screens (e.g. DOS) are pretty hard to get right under anything other than complete darkness, while bright screens will wash out without some ambient light to balance things out.
• Learn the antics of your particular point-and-shoot camera and how to trick it so that its logic doesn't outsmart you, for example by displaying something you know will pick up right, holding down the shutter mid-way to lock the settings, then switching to what you really wanted to capture and taking the actual picture.

sadly the camera I have is actually pretty bad at taking photos of screens (and thats any screen CRT , LCD , LED) , to the point where the camera on my phone does a better job , albeit still highly imperfect.

these are about as good as I could get for the Apple monitor

Zak Mckracken (low res version)

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/zhmnbbs0xsnh64p/AA … v-ovv081MgxA9Ra

Wolf3D

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/xssmr2g5z2tba3e/AA … OTr85z9oEF3H9Ra

Rayman

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/4r0l0wxujyh7pf9/AA … nz7bXOS65XqWZpa

the pics sadly are a bit too bright and not sharp enough compared to the screen itself

King_Corduroy wrote:

...an older CRT monitor with analogue controls that is kind of fuzzy or a more modern 2000's CRT with digital controls and a much sharper picture.

It's possible that the picture you are seeing on that fuzzy 90's CRT isn't what it looked like when it was new. CRTs change their characteristics over time, and old ones need fine tuning from time to time to keep them looking good. I have a 2000's CRT that was fuzzy, but after opening it up and adjusting some trimmers it now has a super sharp picture. Never tried to do the same on a 90's CRT though.

For me, CRT's have too many problems now a days. Not only (as some describe) do some have to be fiddeled with in one or another way.
They are also really heavy, and take up a lot of space. I have gladly sacrificed the need for CRT's on this account.
Personally I go for flat screen and modern TFT's. Just because they are for me more handy.
Not that CRT's are bad in any way, there are just too many "problems" compared to modern monitor's from my point of view.

brostenen wrote:

For me, CRT's have too many problems now a days. Not only (as some describe) do some have to be fiddeled with in one or another […]
Show full quote

For me, CRT's have too many problems now a days. Not only (as some describe) do some have to be fiddeled with in one or another way.
They are also really heavy, and take up a lot of space. I have gladly sacrificed the need for CRT's on this account.
Personally I go for flat screen and modern TFT's. Just because they are for me more handy.
Not that CRT's are bad in any way, there are just too many "problems" compared to modern monitor's from my point of view.

I have to agree with the size issue. I barely have enough space as it is so I really don't have the space for CRTS where LCD will do just fine.
And for me sharp is always better. Blurry hurts my eyes