swaaye wrote:

LCDs can have image retention (my Nook Color's IPS LCD for example). And CRTs have their moire and geometry problems. There are trade offs everywhere.

Plasma tech isn't as prone to burn in as people fear though. I've had a 50" TV connected to a PC for years. It even gets to display a Windows desktop for extended periods sometimes. Image retention is very easy to get but it goes away pretty fast. LCD tech is catching up with Plasma though from what I've seen, which is nice considering the differences in power consumption.

CRT's can also suffer from screen burn. Sometimes you can correct it with a degaussing coil but not always.

Geometry and convergence adjustment can be a pain to get right, especially if the CRT model in question doesn't allow the adjustments you need through the OSD. Most of the higher-end ones let me get things just right, though.

As for burn-in/image retention, later CRT monitors seem much more resistant to it than today's plasmas. Obviously, you still don't want to leave static images on for any substantial length of time, but I don't immediately see image retention like a typical plasma.

Overall, though, the advantages of CRTs outweigh the disadvantages for me, especially where gaming is concerned. Can't wait to get that FW900...

NamelessPlayer wrote:

... Most of the higher-end ones let me get things just right, though.

...and then a wild resolution/refresh rate change appears. 🤣

I use my 21" Sony trinitron for 3D-playable games (shutter glasses) only. For 2D games like civilization, bubble bobble and similar, LCD is a much, much better choice.

edit: I never knew that CRTs can have a burn-in effect. In 29 years I've seen and tested more CRTs then I care to mention and I never saw this effect. How long must you leave the screen with a static picture to be sure that burn-in occurs? A week, or more?

months/years

elfuego wrote:

...and then a wild resolution/refresh rate change appears. :lol: […]
Show full quote

NamelessPlayer wrote:

... Most of the higher-end ones let me get things just right, though.

...and then a wild resolution/refresh rate change appears. 🤣

I use my 21" Sony trinitron for 3D-playable games (shutter glasses) only. For 2D games like civilization, bubble bobble and similar, LCD is a much, much better choice.

edit: I never knew that CRTs can have a burn-in effect. In 29 years I've seen and tested more CRTs then I care to mention and I never saw this effect. How long must you leave the screen with a static picture to be sure that burn-in occurs? A week, or more?

With newer CRTs about 10 years or so, the green monochrome ones do burn in very quickly.

On a completely white screen I can see a very very faint task bar on my +-8 year old CRT.

NamelessPlayer wrote:

Overall, though, the advantages of CRTs outweigh the disadvantages for me, especially where gaming is concerned. Can't wait to get that FW900...

I was shopping for a FW900 a few years ago but due to high prices, the chance that an idiot may pack it (I've been there) and questionable life expectancy, I gave up on the dream.

Look at this new 22" Diamontron monitor. Notice anything unusual? No not the color, oh no not that. THE DENTS.

The only thing I really miss about CRTs is color rendition. I had 2 Iiyama VisionMasters [17" and 19"] and their colors have never be surpassed. Side-by side comparisons of the gold dome in Riven glinting in the sunlight showed how much richness is lost with lower end CRTs and LCDs gernerally. But all in all I would not go back to anything so bulky and hard on the eyes.

If you spend extra on a high end panel and calibration equipment you can get LCDs that will surpass CRTs for colour rendition.

I have a Dell Ultrasharp 2410 and in AdobeRGB mode the color spot on with my CRT. That's usually where I leave it. They are said to be individually calibrated at the factory and I believe it. Over the 16+ years of buying computer equipment, it has to be my best investment. The only thing I miss about CRTs are the speed.

For practical reasons, I don't see myself going back to CRTs (not on a modern machine, anyway). But even the best LCDs out there don't have the response time, adjustable resolution, and flexible refresh-rate support of CRTs; and you need a top-of-the-line IPS panel for the color fidelity that used to be a given for even low-end CRTs.

NamelessPlayer said it best - LCDs are full of compromises, and it's a shame that better technologies out there have failed to catch on so far.

YES! YES! YES!

Atlanta craigslist finally pulled through for me; I scored a GDM-FW900 yesterday! Great condition, too! No overbias on one particular color channel (my Dell P1110 overdid the red, my Sun GDM-5410 overdid the green), no scratches on the anti-glare filter, just monitor perfection.

Now I can have the joys of widescreen without having to give up the usual CRT advantages. As long as this one keeps working, I will never need another monitor.

How much did this set you back, if you don't mind me asking? I've never owned a widescreen CRT before but it intrigues me -- I just want to know if it's even in the realm of budgetary responsibility for me.

The big advantage of crts is the blacks, I got a couple of NOS IBM 17" screens and lcds cant get close to how black this thing is, its like comparing a blackboard to a tin of black paint.

Shagittarius wrote:

Not having used a CRT for many years I recently found one and hooked up a decent rig to play some classics like Doom 3, Blood 2, […]
Show full quote

Not having used a CRT for many years I recently found one and hooked up a decent rig to play some classics like Doom 3, Blood 2, Aliens vs. Predator. I was shocked by how much smoother those games appeared to run on the CRT than they do on my LCDs.

I wish the HD CRTs were not such beasts, I would consider running them even though their clarity leaves something to be desired.

Just wanted to comment since I was pretty impressed with the smoothness.

Also, I only have 60hz lcds, but I think that monitor was running at 60hz as well, would I be equally impressed with a 120hz lcd?

CRTs can dynamically address any sort of resolution and map the phosphors accordingly. LCDs have to clump pixels according to the fixed matrix, and then smudge it all over to hide the inaccuracies.

The higher Hz you run CRTs in, the less flicker will occur, but also you lose some sharpness. 120Hz is a little blurry compared to 60Hz. As such I always run my CRTs at 60Hz (they have to have a good balance of persistence though).

LCDs aren't affected by Hz except for sending data over poorly shielded cables. For example, if your LCD looked "blurry", you'd ramp it up from 60Hz to 72Hz. Or vice-versa if there's too much shielding.

sliderider wrote:

Scanlines suck. So do reflections. The way CRT's refresh is also harder on your eyes than LCD's. I don't miss CRT's one bit.

I disagree totally. LCDs use mercury backlights which hurt my eyes.
Scanlines aren't really a problem unless you go beyond 17", and higher quality tubes handle them better.
The majority of LCDs are made with a glossy finish which are way more reflective than later CRTs. Earlier CRTs are quite matte compared to later 2005 ones which opted for anti-reflective coatings.
With that said, I'm more comfortable with running a CRT in the sunlight (they can outdo ambient sunlight), than a glossy LCD.

Also LCDs have so many inferior issues that they're only good for running on modern computers at a fixed resolution without any fast moving objects. I played diablo 3 on one of my LCDs and, man, it was blur-tastic.

For me 60hz CRT is flicker hell, totally unbearable.

MobyGamer wrote:

How much did this set you back, if you don't mind me asking? I've never owned a widescreen CRT before but it intrigues me -- I just want to know if it's even in the realm of budgetary responsibility for me.

Whoops, I must've not noticed you were referring to me the first time around.

This FW900 cost $250, a bit more than what some people have paid according to that [H]ardForum thread. Some of the luckier people got them even cheaper on craigslist, or even free from computer recycling places.

But a lot of other people have also paid $400 or even $1,000 for these monitors, not including shipping that costs a few hundred dollars more to be done right.

The way I see it, $250 is still quite a bargain for what the FW900 is capable of. There still isn't a better gaming monitor on the market even after a decade.

MaxWar wrote:

For me 60hz CRT is flicker hell, totally unbearable.

It depends on the persistence of the particular CRT, as well as the quality.

I've had low-end HP CRTs which just killed my eyes at 60Hz. Whereas the nice IBM trinitrons I have are perfectly fine at 60Hz. I actually get annoyed when something puts it in something other than 60Hz (I can tell because it's not as sharp, and dare I say "rythmic")

raymangold22 wrote:

MaxWar wrote:

For me 60hz CRT is flicker hell, totally unbearable.

It depends on the persistence of the particular CRT, as well as the quality.

I've had a similar experience. The old 14" CTX multiscan that I had (and still have somewhere in the cellar) was doing pretty ok with 800x600x60Hz - or even 56Hz. But the trinitrons really gave me headache at 60Hz 🙁

I had two quite good Iyama Vision Masters, 17" and 19", and 60hz killed my eyeballs quick enough - not like staring into a strobe light with a cheap CRT, but much below 85hz and I'd get eyestrain soon enough. Eyes differ - Fluorescent lighting annoys me for the same reason.

85hz was the sweet spot and Id even reduce resolution to ensure I didn't go below that. I liked the Vision Masters, but the compactness of LCDs make going back unthinkable at this point..

tincup wrote:

85hz was the sweet spot and Id even reduce resolution to ensure I didn't go below that. I liked the Vision Masters, but the compactness of LCDs make going back unthinkable at this point..

+1 and a bonus +1

I've seen many a monitor and I can tell right off the bat which ones are under 85hz, and it drives me batty.