Why did the industry abandon CRTs? They had perfect black levels

You need a team of six men to move a decent sized monitor and muh 1080p flatscreen

>>52391229
They where more expensive and dangerous to produce.
And lets not consider how they actually worked on the inside shit was always fun to play with specially if you had something metalic in your hand.

Normalfags wanted something less bulky and more conducive to their mindless media consumption.

>>52391229
CRT is a much better technology than LCD.

1) Perfect black levels
2) Flawless off-axis viewing
3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
5) Far longer life-span
6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring

Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD. So tell me /g/, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.

And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.

And before you start yapping about IPS panels:
Enjoy your slow G2G response to switch pixels already, not to mention that hidden input and scalar lag. Luckily, CRT has no such bullshit.

The only semi-legitimate point I've heard against CRTs regards weight, but you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you? Didn't think so.

>>52391229
Flatscreen CRTs were the shit. They were heavy as fuck (even heavier than a normal CRT) but they were god's gift to computing, for sure.

LCDs are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to transport, cheaper to store and more visually appealing to the average consumer.

>>52391245
Is /g/ really this fucking limp?

I'm like a stereotypical obese neckbeard with no muscle and the only CRT I've needed a cart to carry is a W900.

They're awkward as fuck more than anything.

>>52391311
>Is /g/ really this fucking limp?
Yep.

>>52391283
jesus christ.
imagine replacing a 24" widescreen monitor with a CRT
4ft deep.
100 pounds
200w/hr

it's a meme

bitches love memes

>>52391229
they were harmful to the environment and with anything good that harms the environment they were chased off via legislation that increased the production/disposal costs and LCDs were a cheaper and higher profit margin alternative.

and for the past 30 years we've been trying to get back to CRT quality without CRT. Once you old people die off that won't matter though since no one will remember how good CRT were.

>>52391229
Imagine you have a fleet of ten trucks with which to transport monitors, now picture mentally how many CRTs you could transport vs how many LCDs.
Now imagine the costs of running those ten trucks.
Now imagine how many trucks you'd need to carry the equivalent number of CRTs to LCDs.
Now take into account that LCDs were being marketed at the time CRTs died out as being superior to CRTs in every way, to the point where you could sell LCDs for hilarious prices and get some dumb fucks to buy them.
You're going to stick with the bloody LCDs.

We could've all been using ultra thing, lightweight CRT televisions right now if Canon hadn't gone bankrupt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

>>52391413
>manufacturers giving a shit about distributors

Would've been a more convincing argument if you said "retailer shelf space".

>>52391416
>SED
>most convoluted and expensive way of approximating an OLED display anyone could possibly come up with

>>52391283
>Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD

Yes, if we ignore the drawbacks of ANYTHING that thing is better.

>>52391416
SED was patent trolled to death. Canon going backrupt was just a nail in the coffin.

The last thing manufacturers wanted was Toshiba having exclusive access to tech that was decades ahead of the others.

>>52391475
[citation needed]

Canon stated that the reason for abandoning the concept was manufacturing costs.

>>52391229
My LCD had better black levels than my CRT. I tossed that outdated piece of shit.

>>52391505
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/canon-loses-sed-tv-patent-ruling/

SED was dead in water

>>52391385
>200w/hr
bait

JUST DIE ALREADY YOU'VE BEEN REPLACED. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON.

>>52391229
Are there companies that still make CRT monitors?

>>52391283
>Far longer life-span
My dad used to fix CRT TVs for a living and they broke constantly.

>>52391807
Maybe, but only for professionals.

>>52391283
>scalar lag
I don't think all LCD monitors have a scalar.

>>52391540
That was 2007. The project wasn't cancelled until over 3 years later, during which time they were showing off progress. Clearly they reached a deal at some point.

>>52391928
Do you realise how retarded you sound?

There are 2 options why you think this way:

>Your dad specifically fixed CRTs for a living therefore you were around it a lot more
>Your dad was shit at fixing CRTs

You don't become a watch fixer and then complain that watches break 100% of the time because people keep bringing you broken watches

>>52391993
Whether they reached a deal or not it hurt them financially enough to cripple SED.

Part of the deal was also no doubt paying royalties which could have made the production costs stupidly high.

File: unnamed-3.jpg (49KB, 556x741px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 556x741px

>>52391245
>You need a team of six men to move a decent sized monitor

Oh god this. I worked in a Salvation Army warehouse in the Electronics section. There were days where I lifted literally tons of CRTs. Those fucking 200lb Sony Trinitrons were a motherfucker.

It made people blind? Right?

>>52391456
>SED
>anything like OLED

Alright then.

>>52391283
>A technology that had decades to improve is better than something fairly recent that hasn't had time to evolve

>>52391505
Because they couldn't produce it. they didn't have the factories or the capital to build them.

That's why they did the deal with Toshiba.

Nano Proprietary Ltd. killed the whole thing by suing Canon for illegal technology transfer to Toshiba and SED Inc. (jv of Canon and Toshiba)
To rectify, Toshiba had to sell out of SED Inc. and hand over any remaining documents to the court, as well as paying a hefty fine to np ltd.

It's funny because a lot of the issues VR is struggling with (esp. low persistence and backlight synchronization to refresh) were nonexistent in CRTs. They were fucking perfect with zero effort.

Meanwhile the only advantage flats have (variable refresh) still isn't generally available.

A few months ago I saw a demo of 120 Hz on an ancient CRT. It was fucking incredibly smooth, nothing available today comes even remotely close. Not 144 Hz TN panels, nothing. (Well, I haven't tried giant OLED screens, do these exist?)

>>52392303
>LCD
>Recent

>>52392303
How young are you?

Try using a CRT monitor for a laptop screen...

There. The trend of electronics is to become smaller and lighter as to have less of a foot print. Does a high-end CRT have better picture qualities for professional design work? Sure. Can you fit two 23" high definition CRTs easily into each of several cubicles in a small office so that people can work on spread sheets and documents more easily? No. And do LCD displays work fine for other uses? Absolutely.

That's why CRTs died off, they became a product that only worked the best/most economically for a niche market.

>>52391229
I use a FW900 and I used good LCDs.

There are drawbacks. Most noticeably they aren't nearly as sharp and have geometry problems.

The F520 is competitive however.

>>52392394
>>52392394
>an you fit two 23" high definition CRTs easily into each of several cubicles in a small office

Yes you can. CRTs are deeper, not wider. If you could fit 2 LCDs you could certainly fit two CRTs.

File: lawlrarrifw900.jpg (95KB, 1023x688px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1023x688px

Still using fw900 @ 2048x1280 90/1920x1200 96

>>52392398
gfm-f520 @ 1600 <3

>>52391229
LCDs are ridiculously cheaper to producr.

>>52391229

remember the last time you plugged in a 2 pound LCD monitor and then had to fuck around with its screen settings cause it wasnt synced properly?


yeah its really too bad we switched from CRTs

>>52391283
1) Perfect black levels

Yep.

2) Flawless off-axis viewing

Yep

>3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD

Not at the same price point and resolution.

>4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)

If it's set up correctly, you shouldn't be seeing scanlines. What exactly do you mean small granules? Dot pitch? LCDs typically do better now.

>5) Far longer life-span

Not really, in LCDs it's usually the backlight that fails, CCFLs have about the same life expectancy as a CRT tube, LEDs last far longer.

>6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels

Decent LCDs aren't either, if you get a dead pixel, send it back.

>7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring

Instead of sharp at one specific resolution, you get slightly fuzzy at every resolution. Not really an advantage either way IMO.

>>52392466
>1000-700 dollars for a fw900 referb

Makes me sad :(

>>52392534
Not worth it. You'll find them cheaper, and those who have them cheaper usually have them in decent quality because they don't use them and thus don't value them as much.

>>52391283
I'm a CRT fanboy, and prefer my CRT over LCDs so I'm biased
>CRT is a much better technology than LCD.
>1) Perfect black levels
Not really. They have issues but obviously less than LCD. Their ANSI contrast isn't amazing but their VESA is.
>2) Flawless off-axis viewing
Not really. New IPS are better. CRTs have thick barium glass which causes red shift at wide angles.
>3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
Not true
>4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
meh
>5) Far longer life-span
Objectively untrue
>6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
Yeah, but they have others such as tube distortion which can't be corrected.
>7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring
>Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best
LCD.
Possibly.
So tell me /g/, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.
I'm using a T221 and a FW900. Both are solid for different purposes
>And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.
>And before you start yapping about IPS panels:
>Enjoy your slow G2G response to switch pixels already, not to mention that hidden input and scalar lag. Luckily, CRT has no such bullshit.
Different purposes
>The only semi-legitimate point I've heard against CRTs regards weight, but you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you? Didn't think so.
Most arguments aren't, but focus and convergence problems and aging are real problems.

>>52392533
>you get slightly fuzzy at every resolution
This is pretty much the reason CRT's suck
And magnets

>>52391283
>1) Perfect black levels
Not really. The cathode ray gun did indeed not shoot the beam on what would be "black" pixels, but the CRT phosphor was often a really dark gray when it was unpowered. When it's powered, it's kinda hard to shoot a beam of light at something and make it darker. I would wager that modern day panels are a deeper black when off than CRTs were.

>2) Flawless off-axis viewing
Depends on what you mean. Curved CRTs weren't ideal for viewing content from the side. Nor were they when at the end of CRT production when they were flat. Colors were ideal off-axis, but the shape during 80% of CRT production, kinda wasn't.

>3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
Not today. We got 600Hz Plasmas and some LCDs are 480Hz due to strobing backlights. The king CRT, the FW900, was only ~85Hz at 1920x1200. While their refresh rate was less frequent, their response times are much better, without ghosting, or other visual artifacts.

>4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
This has nothing to do with anything. Scan lines are pleasing on 2D games, but they're not exactly great when watching a VHS of Toy Story or Home Alone, as those scanlines don't convey how the typical eye would see a toy or a house, etc. Warmer/natural image is moot since both displays would be calibrated to 120cdm @6500k white temperature.

>5) Far longer life-span
They're about the same. Neither technology will last more than 20 years of medium usage. Over time coloration will degrade, input connections will get faulty, etc.

>6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
But you can have problems such as kids sticking strong magnets towards the phosphor and permanently staining the color of the screen. Degaussing didn't always fix that.

>7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring
CRTs will always have this over LCDs, but they always had the inherent problem of displaying a razor sharp lines.

File: 28hd96_02.jpg (30KB, 683x455px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 683x455px

feels like living in some kind of alternate universe

>>52392394
>Try using a CRT monitor for a laptop screen...
Did you retarded motherfuckers learn how to establish points in highschool at all or are you still in it? What kind of stupid ass argument is this, of course it doesn't apply to laptops you watermelon head.

>>52392703
>but the CRT phosphor was often a really dark gray when it was unpowered. When it's powered, it's kinda hard to shoot a beam of light at something and make it darker. I would wager that modern day panels are a deeper black when off than CRTs were.
A white paper in a dark room is black. It all depends on how bright the room is. In a dark room it kills any LCD. In a bright room its worse.

The industry isn't desktop-oriented anymore. Everything in the computing world is based around mobiles. LCD is mobile friendly. CRT isn't.

>>52391229
Still using a 7 year old 1080i crt TV in my living room. The picture is beautiful

>>52392834
>1080i
>i

>>52392703
All this being said, I think OLED variants will finally make a panel that compromises very little of what made CRTs great.

Ridiculous contrast ratio.
Ridiculous response time.
Ridiculous color gamut (with most models likely able to support >95% Adobe RGB)
Ridiculous refresh rates.
No IPS glow.
No backlight bleed.
No awful off-axis viewing angles.
(Hopefully) no ghosting artifacts.
(Hopefully) high refresh rates, in an era where (hopefully) adaptive refresh sync becomes a standard with video input and output.

>>52392863
>(Hopefully) high refresh rates
Dream on, goyim.
Enjoy your 60Hz.

>>52392775
My point there is that it's impossible to make something blacker than it already is, when dealing with light. (Unless you can make black pixels a virtual black hole that absorbs light to make it literal perfect darkness.)

That being said, CRTs have really exaggerated "contrast" claims. While yes, their black levels were indeed better than LCDs of their time, most often struggled to output the de-facto standard 120cdm brightness for white.

With a dark gray phosphor and dim brightness, it did really well for contrast ratios in a perfect setting of emitting pure white and pure black, although CRTs had problems with contrast stability especially with checkerboard patterns. (See: http://www.displaymate.com/ShootOut_Part_1.htm Their contrast ratios can dip below 1:100 for a 9x9 black/white checkerboard pattern. )

Glossy OLED panels have a much deeper jet black panel and, if they're HDR capable, can emit eye-piercing amounts of brightness for whites. By that token, OLEDs are very well ready to surpass CRTs in contrast ratio (especially in stability.)

>>52392772
Mate you need to get a fresnel lense (or 3).


FP1355 checking in here. If CS didn't keep dropping FPS with every patch and AMD would start supporting VGA everything would be peachy.

I figure I'll ask here since there are a bunch of CRT enthusiasts.

I'm trying to hook up my IBM 5150 with a EGA card to a multisync monitor that has a VGA male cable. The card has a female DE-9 port on it. Will this adapter work?

http://www.amazon.com/CablesOnline-Female-Multisync-Adapter-AD-V02/dp/B00E4O3F64/ref=pd_sim_147_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=41gueZspShL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=01E5VGR9G6Z36D597V7P

>>52391229
>>52392703

My VA panel lcd monitor has significantly better black levels than any crt I've ever seen (I even still have a crt tv in my room for melee and had a trinitron monitor on my desk up until recently.)

I can't mount a CRT on a wall like I've got my LCD mounted.

>Need 75 Hz minimum or get headache-inducing strobing
>CRTs generally have a shorter lifespan than LCDs, although companies nowadays are saving pennies by using garbage capacitors so a new LCD might actually die after 2 or 3 years
>CRTs take up a lot of depth, so if you have a 27" CRT it's going to take up substantial space on your desk. A 27" Sony WEGA has a depth of 20", so on my desk there won't even be enough room for my keyboard.

File: wouldyoulikesomegrapes.jpg (114KB, 354x605px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 354x605px

>>52392534
Got my gdm f520 & fw900 for free. Need maintenance tho.

>>52392850
A compromise yeah, but they still looked fucking great. They hardly sold any because by then big LCDs / Plasma had gone mainstream.

LCDs are cheaper to manufacture and ship, smaller, and lighter. The industry doesn't care if CRTs were superior, LCD monitors are much more convenient for them.

>>52392975
>>52392975
The thing is, when viewing a checkerboard the human eye will pretty much see the black part as black even with only a 100:1 contrast ratio because the human eyes/brain just can't see the glowing black when its right next to a glaring bright white.

However, when you view pure black in a dark room, your eyes/brain will easily see the slightest amount of glow, especially after your pupils dilate a bit.

When it comes to real world usage, a good CRT will still easily maintain a very high contrast ratio when displaying "mostly dark" scenes, such as in a dark movie, show, or game. Even the best LCDs will fall short in these scenarios.

Basically, the CRT's contrast ratio advantages are easily seen in real world usage, while their disadvantages are basically a non-issue in practice because of the way the eyes/brain work.

This is, of course, in reference to viewing in a dark room. In a lit room, even the best CRT equipped with an anti-glare filter will still have a worse black level due to phosphor reflectance.

Also, I believe the old white level standard was actually 80 cd/(mm) in the days of CRT monitors. I find 120 to be way, way too bright for residential usage, but it might be appropriate in a brightly lit office.

File: alienware-wrap-around.jpg (21KB, 450x337px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x337px

>>52391385

>>52391229
>>52391245
>>52391271.

>>>>/fit/

>>52391285
>>52391311
>>52391400
>>52391528

I'm okay with owning monitors that don't have mercury

>>52393081
>fp1355
>160Hz
>15 years old
>22" and <2' deep

File: 1452547346668.jpg (45KB, 491x487px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 491x487px

>>52393401
>2' deep

>>52393442
I was curious so I measured it, surprisingly only 17"!

>>52392341
>It's funny because a lot of the issues VR is struggling with (esp. low persistence and backlight synchronization to refresh) were nonexistent in CRTs. They were fucking perfect with zero effort.

I love me some CRT, but I don't think I would want to strap one of those to my head for any significant amount of time.

>>52392394
>Try using a CRT monitor for a laptop screen...

Actually, there was a type of CRT called a "beam-index tube" that showed promise for such a use. Sadly development of the tech seems to have stopped in the 80's, which is a shame because not having a shadow mask or an aperture grille would have allowed for higher resolutions and a brighter picture in direct view tubes.

File: Indextron.jpg (260KB, 525x606px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 525x606px

>>52393479
>tfw no Indextron

>>52393582
Remember SED displays?

>>52393613
>tfw SED and FED are kill

Feelbird, please take me away from here.

>>52391229
They took up too much desk space.

Actual picture quality doesn't fucking matter as long as office applications, command lines, and developer environments function fine on them.

The only people needing CRTs were graphic designers and artists, and they didn't use the shitty CRTs you did, but the large 22" ones that used BNC inputs and ran at 2048x1536@75hz..

>>52391229
> max resolution of 480p
> Eye cancer
> High-pitched noise
> Heavy as fuck
> According to "Fight Club" very easy to turn into bombs

>>52393691
lmao

>>52393691
Are any of those memes true?

>>52393731
They were heavy and the best you could get for cheap was 480p.

And at least CRT TVs made that high-pitched noise.

>>52393644
But my black level for dark shows and movies and games and my response time for gaming and even just smoothness of scrolling.

The whole graphics designers need CRTs thing is a bunch of nonsense. LCD monitors quickly became *superior* for graphics design because graphics designers don't design in the dark nor do they really have much issue with motion performance. High end LCD monitors were already very capable of high color accuracy by the time CRT monitors were discontinued, and they didn't have any of the potential geometry issues which would be a legitimate concern to graphics designers.

If anything, it's media and gaming enthusiasts who really had a use for CRT monitors after LCD monitors took over. To this day, they are *still* arguably superior for dark room viewing and gaming, albeit to a lesser extent.

>>52393731
They are heavy.

They went to high res, didn't cause eye cancer, and only the TVs made high pitched noise because no monitor was 480p

>>52393770
>But my black level for dark shows and movies and games and my response time for gaming and even just smoothness of scrolling.

PCs were made for work, not to do games and multimedia. That was just something it could also do.

>>52391229
i love crts as much as the next guy and im probably going to pick up a crt tv again at somepoint for my legacy consoles since they look like ass on lcd.

but im happy with my 27 inch ips monitor. And the blur is barely noticable anyway

>>52392450
Working at Chase i can say no, you cannot, unless i didn't want room for my keyboard or mouse.

>>52391229
Things CRTs do better:
> handle arbitrary resolutions without scaling artifacts
> zero added lag
> no color shift on off-angles
> better color at high refresh rates/motion speeds due to no pixel transitions, overdrive, etc.
> better motion clarity than non-strobed LCDs
> better color gamut than most LCDs
> better black levels than virtually all LCDs

Things LCDs do better:
> native resolution sharpness substantially better than CRTs at any resolution
> 100 ppi standard for older monitors, ~200 ppi becoming more prevalent, >800 possible if not likely on large displays
> uniform and stable geometry
> higher overall pixel bandwidth (2160p120 next year vs. 1200p100 for best CRTs ever)
> much thinner and lighter
> can be arbitrarily big
> flat surface
> thinner bezels
> no trinitron damping wires for larger screens
> uses less power
> can do variable refresh rates
> can be flicker-free or strobed for motion clarity
> can be brighter, have greater dynamic range
> wider color gamut for LED-backlit

certain display types work better for certain use cases.
neither is strictly universally better than the other.

>>52393860
Excellent post.

>no trinitron damping wires for larger screens
If you are implying that small Trinitrons don't have any damping wires, they still have one, just not two as in the larger ones.

>>52392703
>Not today. We got 600Hz Plasmas and some LCDs are 480Hz due to strobing backlights. The king CRT, the FW900, was only ~85Hz at 1920x1200. While their refresh rate was less frequent, their response times are much better, without ghosting, or other visual artifacts.

I'm not exactly all over CRTs' dicks, but multiple strobing on LCDs is generally a bad thing for motion clarity, and plasma's 480-600Hz sub-field drive is basically just pulse-modulated brightness, with 8 or 10 logarithmically sized time windows per 60Hz frame.
It's why certain pixel brightness levels cause visible "plasma flicker".

the original refresh claim was bullshit though.
the best CRTs ever made peaked at ~130kHz h-sync, which equates to just over 100Hz at 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.
the few monitors that supported 200Hz v-sync could only do so at 800x600 or lower.

the UHD@120Hz monitors coming out in Q4 have the h-sync equivalent of over 260 kHz, which completely blows away any CRT ever made.

>>52392296
>>SED
>>anything like OLED
>Alright then.

he's probably referring to SED/FED's unavoidable tendency to self destruct, with exponentially worsening panel darkening as vacuum failure created more emitter tip erosion, which created more molecules in the gap, and so on.

it's been broadly speculated that the "manufacturing cost" issue was a smokescreen to hide the issue that nobody know how to cheaply etch emitter arrays from a cheap but still sufficiently durable substrate.

the demo units shown did look great, but nobody in public really knew how many hundreds or thousands of hours of use they could withstand before burning out.

tfw i play video games on a 32 inch trinitron 34 in height, 38 width, and 26in depth
310 lbs

thing is heavy as hell and requires 3 to move
but damn have my video games not looked better.

>>52394107
>310 lbs for a 32" Trinitron
That doesn't sound right... With a quick search I'm seeing them listed in the range of 165-180 lbs.

>>52391229
>muh thinness
>muh production costs
>muh flatness
>muh environmental friendliness

>>52394148
Might be a 36 inch trinitron then, it's been years since i measured it, and misclick on the 3, 210 lbs*

>>52393802
>PCs were made for work, not to do games and multimedia
PCs were made for games and multimedia, not to do work

>>52391385
>w/hr

welcome

>>52392296
Both technologies are ways of making pigments painted onto the screen glow doing away with the backlight. The end result is virtually identical, but the SED has millions more degradable parts, weighs more, is significantly thicker, uses more power, and offers absolutely no benefit over OLED.

>>52391229
Because LCD's were
>Trendy
>New
>Thin

CRT's were
>Old
>Fat

The industry doesn't give a shit about uality

>>52391400
>harmful to the environment
This is such bullshit spread by tree-hugging faggots

>The latest pico-projectors have god-tier Laser Technology with MEMS Mirrors or some shit
>Works like a CRT but is better since it has 0 motion blur,0 phosphor decay(cuz no phosphor),0 scanout lag,0 persistence etc.
>Big Companies keep acting like it doesn't exist and don't put R&D on it becuase they're faggots who are obsessed with shit tech like OLED
>Some guy over at Blurbusters is producing a limited number of Monitors using this technology
>That's probably all that will be done with this technology

Why even live?

>>52392533
>Implying planned obsolescence isn't a thing with new tech

>>52395163
>pico-projectors
>Blurbusters
Is Blurbusters dead btw? They didn't update news section for like 6 month, so i stopped following.
Remind me about that pico stuff. Isn't it very low res?

>>52395199
Just checked myself, only 640×480.

>>52391229
Dumbass consumers were marketed LCD hard and bought into it, just as Ultra Slim CRTs were about to come out

>>52393776
>>52393763
Maybe heavy for a monitor, a high end proffesional 22" will only weigh 30kg. Sure that's heavy for an LCD, but one person can easily lift it.

As for 480p, I don't think that's true, even 20 year old consumer trash grade CRTs will be 1080p.

Only CRTs with failing capacitors will have coil whine.

There is a bit of darwinian bias here, most CRTs that are around today are top tier professional grade (electron blue, multisync, diamondtron, pvm, etc) where as most consumer trash is, as expected, now trash.

>>52393957
Congrats to LCDs for catching up (if only partially). Though 120Hz is still 120Hz in the end, it still can't compete with 200Hz.

>>52395199
Depends on which Pico Projector
The latest one forgot what it was called...was 1920x720(using non-square pixels)
Sony rebranded that shit and released it as Sony MPCL1 Projector about 6 months ago too

Check the last 3 pages of this thread
This guy Light23 is producing a few monitors for a few people and he has improved on the tech itself(re-arranged the lasers or some shit to get more Lumen output)
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1156&start=110

File: 1366087354870.jpg (636KB, 2262x2050px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 2262x2050px

>>52395345

Big and heavy = harder + more expensive to ship from china
Use your fucking head

Your eyes get murdered after an hour
they make that noise
they can implode when damaged, so you better not have any friends that get autism mad

>>52395328
Slim CRTs have crap geometry though.

>>52395698
I'm sure they would have perfected it

>>52395704
Possibly. The only slim CRTs that made it to market were from lower tier brands, so unfortunately that is all the world will ever know of them.

>>52395775
Plus there were SEDs and FEDs in development which were patent trolled and axed.

Better slim CRTs would have been a reality eventually.

>>52395361
dude, there are going to be 200-240Hz 1080p and 1440p TN LCDs coming out within a year because DP 1.3 is finally hitting the streets.

not sure what color quality will be like, but even the absolute peak refresh rate crown is being lost.

>>52391271
Sounds high test.

>>52396069
Well when it is lost we will see :)

If it's a TN panel then it sounds like it will be lost to a panel that has sacrificed all else.

>>52396069
I realize that this means little to most people, but CRTs not being sample and hold means a lot to me.

>>52391229

The vast majority of CRTs were awful. I seem to remember "nice" consumer monitors being something like .35 dot pitch, with typical ones more like .40. Worse, shitty monitors would have uneven focus, uneven illumination, and poor whites.

Nice monitors like the Sony Trinitrons were something like .28 or .25 dot pitch, completely consistent across the screen, with nice, bright whites.

CRTs are, by comparison, absolutely amazing. Yeah, really shitty TFT panels with lousy view angles are awful. But I've hardly ever had one of them. Even mediocre LCDs have been gorgeous compared to all but the nicest CRTs.

Also, ever try to move a CRT with a 21" Trinitron?

>>52391311
>I don't know what health and safety regulations are

>>52396187
but the trinitrons had that fucking wire that cast a shadow on the screen that you couldn't fukcing ignore after some cocksucker points it out

>>52396212
That's a drawback of the Aperture Grill

>>52396189
>making shitty excuses for being a lanklet
Do you still eat baby food too because you're afraid of choking?

>>52396162
>but CRTs not being sample and hold means a lot to me.
iktfb

laser gods please save us from the OLED menace

Nobody here has mentioned the incredibly loud fan noise associated with CRT. ITT babies that never actually used the technology.

>>52393802
They have some pros for "work" too,
>no 16:9 garbage aspect ratio, instead more optimized towards data processing and other productivity
>better color reproduction made it a better choice for 2D media production
>plays nice with non-"native" resolutions, since there is no such thing on a CRT
>more discrete components makes them easier and more worthwhile to repair

>>52393957
>>52395361
>>52396069
>>52396151

Sony GDM FW900 was 160Hz/121kHz.
Iiyama Vision Master Pro 514, to my knowledge the all-time scanning bandwidth champ, was 200Hz/142kHz

acting like any non-pro grade CRT could even do 100 Hz is not a very honest recollection.
strobed 120Hz LCDs now exceed >99% of all CRTs ever made for peak refresh rate, before you even consider resolution.

>>52396151
240Hz sounds like a stretch, but 200Hz is only roughly a third faster that 144Hz and could probably be managed without looking like complete ass.

My real hope's on the UHD@120Hz displays supposedly coming in Q4, especially with variable refresh, which is something CRTs could never do.

>>52396325
Because such a thing never existed.

>>52396446

Winterbreakfag plz go

>>52396325
Fan noise? Are you referring to the coil whine that is present on 15kHz scan monitors? I wouldn't describe that or even the vertical deflection buzz as a "fan noise".

Or are you thinking about something like a Megaveiw? Most CRTs don't have a fan.

>>52392233
I have one of said trinitrons, HDMI and all. Got it at goodwill for $40 and Looking to unload it. If you can lift it, and live in/can travel to central Colorado its yours.

>>52396212

Yep. Except that I had no problem ignoring it after awhile.

I mean, if I point out that you're breathing right now, are you going to suffocate when you forget after ten minutes?

It really wasn't that big of a deal.

BTW, here's a story from an old timer: when I got my first LCD at work, maybe 19" or 20", it was a truly bizarre experience. Everything seemed like it was drawn on the surface of the monitor, since I'd always had the thickness of a glass CRT surface between me and the actual displayed pixels. I had to resist the urge to reach out and touch window sliders and whatnot.

Oddly enough, though, that feeling went away after a while. I got used to it. Just like the Trinitron wires.

>>52391229
weighed a lot
used a fuck ton of power
took up a lot of space
usually had fuck hueg bezels
not thin like the fancy lcd screens out there

>>52391283
>muh response time
you are the same type of autist who would use a 144 hz monitor because it helps you to get more headshots in colla dewty

>>52392303
lcd has had decades to improve as well (and they have)

>>52396593
>the power consumption of two light bulbs
>a fuck ton of power

>>52395345
>tfw I get the opposite when looking for CRT monitors on online classifieds
>tfw stuck with what would be an amazing CRT if it wasn't beat to shit

Last time I checked, the only good one I could find was in another state.

However, there is an Apple Studio Display that keeps disappearing and reappearing, and I'm tempted to just grab that and deal with the fact I'll have to dust off my old G3 iMac to adjust the picture. It's otherwise a very good CRT from what I've heard.

>>52391229
Just got a sun microsystems crt.
75hz 1600x1200
120hz at a lower resolution (can not remember)

Image quality is beatiful, not even flatscreen. It's a curved screen.

>>52396629
What light bulbs you using mang?
Standard. Measurements. Two old light bulbs use 120w, as much as fifteen LED bulbs. You can light a mcmansion for what two bulbs used to take. (If only I could afford a MCMansion to match the lighting)

>crt falls over, screen cracks
>fucking explosion
>LCD falls over, bezel cracks if lucky
>nothing happens

>>52397813
>fucking implosion
FTFY

>>52397899
Tbqh I thought of that as I was writing it but didn't feel bothered to go back and fix it.

Still gave me a heart attack at the tender age of 11

>>52391229
Shipping them was too expensive due to their size and weight
You will be able to have virtual monitors in VR soon which will be as good as CRTs and have no weight

>>52397813
>crt falls over
>desk explodes
:(

>>52391229
Expensive to produce
Heavy as fuck cost a lot to ship

My granddad still has a giant CRT in his basement. It took a team of 3 Men who weighed 250 and were built better than Peyton Manning to move the fucking thing. It is still here (and still works well mind you) because we simply cannot fucking move it. I would trade it ANYDAY for a LCD because they are up to date. This thing doesn't even have the capability to support a modern console.

>>52397943
>soon
Soon, like in 5 years soon, you stupid cunt?
You need at least 4k display in HMD to be able to even compare it to the traditional screen.
And we are fucking struggling right now to get 30 fps in normal screen 4k gaming, have fun trying to run it 90fps 3d in HMD.

>>52398087
>implying current FW900 CRTs can go beyond 1600x1000 without being a blurry mess
And to replace this a 2k HMD will be enough
So somewhere in 2017

Don't they damage your vision?

>>52398119
No, it won't be. Even at equal resolution and density, CRT look better because of their arrangement and halation. You can't emulate this at equal resolution, let alone at a much much much lower pixel density.

I doubt even 4k will be enough with current technology, the fill ratios are just too low. There are companies who make extremely high fill ratio displays, but no one in the VR space is cooperating.

I would say that 5-10 years before VR can emulate CRT, and that's assuming some pretty huge leaps in display technology.

>>52391229
what I want to know is why SED (and FED) technology was totally abandoned. It was basically a flat-screen version of CRT for fucks sake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

>>52393172
that's a DLP rear projection monitor

>>52398119
Just shut up, idiot.
>2k
2k is almost the same as fucking 1080p. And it's no enough. Why you even talk, if you don't know shit.
>implying current FW900 CRTs can go beyond 1600x1000 without being a blurry mess
First of all, yes, they fucking can go 1600x1200 easily. I'm using this res right now.
And secondly, what is your point?
4k HMD is even worse than 1024x768 CRT (normal working distance). It's your HighDPI that you used to, it's a bare minimum from 1998.
>So somewhere in 2017
Dream on, you fucking retard.

>>52398247
>There are companies who make extremely high fill ratio displays
Examples?
>no one in the VR space is cooperating.
Literally what?
It's not true.
>I would say that 5-10 years before VR can emulate CRT, and that's assuming some pretty huge leaps in display technology.
Nice asspull right here.

>>52398355
>It's not your HighDPI

>2016
>still using CRT

Holy shit what rock did you come out from?

>>52397813
Unless your throwing your crt off your desk it doesn't just fall over

>>52398394
Rock were people had taste and self-respect.

>>52398355
>Examples?
eMagin's HMD has around 99% fill rate if I remember correctly. There is no screen door effect like you get from the Rift, and it avoids the aberation of the Star.

>It's not true.
A half dozen companies are developing their own APIs, all with the very thin promises of compatibility. Eg Rift, Star, Steam, OSVR, etc.

But this was with regards to hardware - you can see companies like Sixense developing tracking where as everyone else use their own. In the display world you have the previously mentioned eMagin making the best display, but no one else is using it. You also have Star with their 4k displays, but again, no one else is using them. You have the Fove with eye tracking, but no one else.

No one is interested in licensing technology or building a neutral shared platform, everyone is vying for control and that quick payout $$$.

>Nice asspull right here.
Ok? All predictions are asspull mate. Right now the technology is no where near able to emulate a CRT, so 5-10 years is much more accurate than "1-2 years", which is just stupid. You could argue "look how far the Rift has gotten", but really all they did was switch to better screens and reinvent the wheel (badly). With regards to the technology, they have made 0 advancement.

>>52393130
Holy shit, the two best CRTs ever made. I can't even find one being sold nearby.

>>52398355
I'm talking about 2000x2000 for each eye

>>52391229
They broke, like everything does.

Manufacturers weren't willing to make more, and eventually they got replaced.

>>52398435
>eMagin's HMD
It's not so simple with micro displays. You have to use complex optics.
Sony used them in HMZ and they fucked optics.
eMagin was trying to jew money with optics if i remember corectly. Let them try.
We will get glasses form-factor sooner or later for sure.
>Oculus and Valve
Ok, two main player right here. Valve have to step in after fucking faggot Iribe sold Oculus out, so it's understandable.
>Infiniteye
I remember that dude from mtbs3d, palmer like hand made dk1 level shit, 2 screens with fresnel, nothing special. Doesn't matter if they got support.
>OSVR
Also literally who. DK1 level. Doesn't matter.
>Sixense
hahaha. Literally dead with shit tech nobody need.
And why you even bring them and didn't mention perception neuron?
On Neuron, good as cheap mocap. Useless for average consumer.
>No one is interested in licensing technology or building a neutral shared platform, everyone is vying for control and that quick payout $$$.
Things take time. It's all about cost. Noone expect mass adoption for 1500$ HMD. Right now we have good room to grow.
And it doesn't really matter if some shitters don't want to cooperate, we will get there.
>"1-2 years", which is just stupid
It was retarded actually. No point to even trying to predict, but it's 5+ years for sure.

>>52398785
>It's not so simple with micro displays. You have to use complex optics
True, but you ask who makes high fill ratio displays, and I tell you, that's all I can give you...

>Also literally who
The point is that literally everyone is making their own SDK no one gives a shit about working together.

>Sixense is dead and shit
I disagree lol, but whatever.

>Perception Neuron
desu never seen a demo that didn't look like it had bad latency and not the best tracking, but I don't follow them.

>Things take time etc
Sure we will get there, but it won't be fast. To get to a level where CRT is obsolete we need new technology, and even some company were to invent it, they wouldn't share, and no one would want to buy it. But given enough time, sure.

>>52398913
>high fill ratio displays
It's easy actually.
Sony used displays for camera's path-finder in HMZ.
Tiniest 720p OLED displays in 2011.
Optics is the main limitation here.

>SDK no one gives a shit about working together.
It's okay, they can die. Only oculus and valve have chance on PC right now.

>I disagree lol, but whatever.
They was on frontier once, but now they are dead, at least marketing wise. Who needs their overpriced barely working shit, when you have lighthouse.

>they wouldn't share, and no one would want to buy it
Lets see how first generation of "good" HMDs (Vive, CV1, PSVR) goes first.

>>52399077
>Optics is the main limitation here.
I don't think it is true, OLED doesn't have good fill ratio even if the density is high.

>Only oculus and valve have chance on PC right now.
You aren't wrong, but still it is a waste.

>Lets see how first generation go
Well I know you know the outcome of the first generation... It only exists as a stepping stone to the future. 5+ years before the are good? Unless there is some serious changes I think it's a good estimate. I think it's quite an optimistic estimate actually.

>>52399164
I didn't get it.
Fill ratio is about screen-door effect?

>It only exists as a stepping stone to the future
Well, i will still buy CV1 and Vive anyway, and just keep using traditional monitors for work.

File: fillratio.png (382KB, 690x311px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 690x311px

>>52399216
>Fill ratio is about screen-door effect?
Yes, you can think of it as the opposite of fill factor in image sensors - it's the ratio of pixels to screen area. A display may have a higher pixel density, but have smaller pixels resulting in less fill ratio. Having bad fill ratio results in the notorious screendoor (just goning to add that CRTs have such high halation that even with bad fill ratios they won't produce screen door effects...)

I had a DK2 but really it is trash for actual usage. I will wait to see how CV1 reviews before even thinking about it. Really I am more interested in the Fove at the moment.

File: 1451457004118.jpg (82KB, 624x960px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 624x960px

Reminder that SED was a thing and it was tossed by the wayside despite being superior to all current display technologies

File: autismlevel.png (193KB, 800x796px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 800x796px

>>52391229

>>52399292
I know you are talking about, i just misunderstood at first.
They solved it in CV1, by custom screen (better diods), optics, custom filter on top of display, like people used with dk2(not so sure about this one).
At least reviewers say they solved it.

>Fove at the moment.
No content - dead device.

>>52399398
>At least reviewers say they solved it.
For me seeing is believing, some reviewers thought DK2 solved it, some didn't even think it was a problem in DK1. Maybe CV1 solved it, maybe it didn't, time will tell...

>No content - dead device
:) I hope not!

>>52392772

In which we have a visual representation of how shitty black levels on CRT's are if the room isn't pitch black.

>>52391229
I've noticed it too when I changed to an LCD. I was surprised to see that names on screen became blurry when I rotated fast. On the CRT, I didn't experience that. CRT > LCD in terms of quality.

>>52391229
The market cared more about form factor, convenience, and eye strain.
The few professional places that benefited from crts resolution, color, or low latency held onto them for a fair amount of time while none were being made.

>>52398412
Or live in a place that has earthquakes

>>52394099
>manufacturing cost was a smokescreen to hide the cost of manufacturing
What?

>>52400963
the claim is that "manufacturing costs" sounds to an untrained ear like just minor to moderate profitability issues, not that the current design was completely unworkable and that they'd need to start from scratch and make them out of platinum or something.

>>52391229
they don't exactly scale well for modern mass production needs.

>>52398468
f520 broke and fw900 aint gon last long. I'd sell a kidney for some crt maintenance.

>>52401282
>tfw all good CRTs are going to become unusable within the next decade (the more they're used, the sooner), and there's no going back

>>52396187
>completely consistent across the screen, with nice, bright whites.

That doesn't last forever though. The more use the monitor receives, the more wear on the tube (resulting in loss of brightness and contrast) and the more the deflection yokes go out of alignment (resulting in uneven focus across the screen).

>>52391229
>noticeable flicker at most refresh rates
>geometry issues
>change of resolution can cause h or v shift
>needs a warmup before it performs optimal
>all those tools to fix refresh rates

I don't remember them to be awesome, except for scaling/different resolutions. It's a /vr/ meme mostly.

>>52399077
Sony uses white OLEDs only with color filters for HMZ and viewfinders, not the same as full OLED.

>>52395345
>where as most consumer trash is, as expected, now trash.
The run-off-the-mill 17 inch consumer-grade CRTs are trash because nobody wants them even if you paid them to take them. Decent size/spec/quality ones like those you mentioned are the only ones anybody at all is still interested in, and even that is a niche (normies can't tell the difference between a decent and a crappy CRT and don't want any CRTs at all, period).

>>52395381
Who the fuck puts a graphics card inside a VHS tape casing?

>>52395073
Unfortunately this. You may also notice that while the "My Computer" icon in Windows 2000 and ME was still a desktop/CRT, in Windows XP it already was an LCD monitor. So yes, as early as 2001 there was major shilling for LCDs.

>>52394708

OLED is moot, because moot is OLED.

>>52394107
But that's a TV and not a monitor cabable of decent resolutions.

>>52393860
>LCDs can be arbitrarily big
So can be CRTs, provided your crane to move them can be arbitrarily big as well.

>>52391229
Desk space was the big seller I hear.

>>52391283
Forgot the best thing about them, pixels suck because any resolution other than native looks blurry, CRT's don't have that problem, and res looks great.

the 1:1 parity of signal:display is just so damn satisfying with LCDs. No analog nonsense mussing up 1080 perfectly ordered rows.

>>52393802
It's funny how 30 years ago virtually anyone who would buy a PC would do so to do work/business related stuff (PCs sucked hard at multimedia/entertainment until early-mid 90s at least), while now people are proclaiming the PC to be "dead" and are ditching them for mobile devices which may be OK for entertainment/media consumption, but suck hard at anything work-related. So, is work dead in 2016? What gives?

>>52391229
>muh weak arms
>muh power consumption
>muh wasted space
>muh noise
>muh flickering

>>52391229
>Why did the industry abandon CRTs?
>They had perfect black levels
Sigh. They only had perfect blacks IN THEORY. In practice they never had a perfect blackpoint.

>>52402721
>So can be CRTs, provided your crane to move them can be arbitrarily big as well.
Actually, no. There's a limit to CRT size given the glass needs to stand against a vacuum.

>>52402773
The desktop might be dead, it's a middle-ground device for enthusiasts and manchildren that need muh power for gaimz.

Most work done on PCs can be done on laptops. Stuff that can't, can still be done using essentially dumb terminals with mainframe support.

>>52393130
What is a good maintenance/calibration checklist for a used CRT monitor?

>>52402868
that's why CRT weight increases roughly cubicly with diagonal size instead of quadratically as would be the case if bigger displays didn't need thicker glass.

the real limit would probably be the point where the front glass was so thick that too much light from the phosphors would be lost, but there's nothing besides practicality stopping somebody making a vacuum chamber room with a foot thick glass front wall.

you would however need either stupidly large pixels and diffuse electron beams or a way to accurately control multiple beams in such a way that their interactions could be compensated for.

>>52392728
What kind of equipment is this?

>>52403005
looks like SGI InterView 28hd96 (28", 1920x1080p at 85Hz)

> http://www.ceu-inc.com/intergr_6d.html

this pic is from John Carmack's setup in the late 90s IIRC

>>52398286
It apparently had become expensive to develop and lcd were cheaper to manufacture. Due to the nature of FED and SED, chances are it would have become cheaper than LCD in the long-term, but that would have involved even more research and more time. Economically speaking, with the trade and monetary benefits favouring short-term rapid money rather than long-term investment, SED wasn't given a chance. Pity, too.

>>52403001
Don't think bigger, think smaller for the future, always smaller. Miniaturize the entire CRT assembly to a size at most 3x3 a modern LCD pixel, and make a ~200" diagonal display out of them. Heavy? Probably. but thin, power consumption somewhere between that of full LCD and CRT, accepts a digital signal and produces pleasantly blended light instead of discreet pixels.

>>52397813
*implodes

>They had perfect black levels
not unless you use them in a pitch dark room. look at a crt's screen while turned off in a normally lit room, it will look grey, this is the darkest shade it can produce.

SED still wouldn't have been as cheap as LCD even if it had as much money dumped into it. It would maybe have found a niche in the medical or design industry for super high quality/resolution imaging. You still wouldn't have one on your desk or in your living room (unless you were insanely rich)

Although I only used them briefly when young I could still remember the SUPPPER annoying high pitched noise comming from every CRT Ive seen,I still hear it when I come close to one (21 btw)
Is this some inherent to all CRT's or has there been a solution?

Not shitting on CRT or LCD/LED btw

I magine it had something to do with the drive in the TV marketplace for larger and larger screens.

There probably wasn't enough justification to have both a CRT division and a TV division that worked on different technologies.

It was probably easier/cheaper to consolidate the two, and then of course once tvs became bigger/thinner consumers probably started to demand the same thing from monitors.

>>52391229
High power draw and the RoHS Directive killed them off.

>>52395381
>Outer case says NVIDYA GTX
>Card has an ATI label

LOLKEK

>>52391229
This is why I have a hard time browsing /g/ seriously. If I came to one of your houses would you have a Thinkpad with a CRT monitor and mechanical keyboard attached? Would you show me your collection of FLAC music because you're too fedora for MP3 or AAC?

>>52405173
Bullshit. The process to make SED is both simpler and has higher yields than AMLCD, with the bigger difficulty being in the speed of the deposition of the emitters on the subtrate and how to do so on ever larger screens.

>>52405324
Good for them, because an actual gtx295 would melt the whole thing in an instant

I'm using one

>>52405339
I do use FLAC with a good sound system, have black cherry keyboard, and have to CRT back home. What's wrong with? You also hate the fact I have a vinyl collection and a full stack of working old consoles? Or the fact I have a blackberry, still use a pager, and keep a small cassette and vhs collection?

I, for one, would thing /g/ of all places would love to mess around with old tech.

>>52391229
>Dat 19" Flatscreen goodness
>My 55" telly weighs less

Because I dont want a radiation tumor on my head because of it. ;^}

>>52391229
Is there a 1080p crt then?

File: 1427399431211.jpg (113KB, 482x482px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 482x482px

Gold plated memories. While on paper they might have some neat features, in reality they were awful and I'm so glad there are none left anymore.

A good LCD can reproduce black well enough, if you need more you probably are just vain, and look at the numbers. Wouldn't surprise me if you made spread sheets about some dumb shit about refresh rates and their impact on power consumption on your free time. For people like that nothing will do but absolute numbers, they aren't even looking at the picture anymore.

Nobody wants a bulky low resolution box on their table. Some stuck up sysadmins or arch ricers only do it for imaginary street cred. Give it up already, you people are a joke.

I'm willing to trade "perfect black" for 32" inches of 1440p.

>>52406402
Confirmed for never owning a CRT if your argument is "it looks better in LCD". Weight, space, power savings, cost, anything you want, but an CRT produces a better imagine, you underage faggot.

>>52403049
Was there hardware capable of 1080p gaming back then? I thought they only had less than 32mb vram?

Idk I was only a baby in the 90s.

>>52406705
It obviously depended on the scene complexity, whether you were using AF or god forbid AA, but 1080p (or more realistically 1600x1200) probably became realistic with the Radeon 9700 Pro (2GP/s, 2GT/s, 17GB/s) in 2002.

Slightly earlier cards like the GF4 Ti4600 (1.2GP/s, 2.4GT/s, 10GB/s) or Radeon 8500 (1.1GP/s, 2.2GT, 9GB/s) really weren't beefy enough except for really trivial scenes.

>>52406446

>Not using IPS

It's like you want to be wrong.

dont worry guys

when i win billion dollar lottery i bring back crt

only $9999.99 each

>>52391229
>Why did the industry abandon CRTs?
muh energy consumption, RoHS commies, looked bulky, fugly and low-tech

>They had perfect black levels and color.
good (but not truly perfect) blacks only in dark rooms, homie.
CRT phosphors and masks catch ambient light like a bitch
colors were very good, but wide-gamut LCDs have surpassed phosphors

LCDs took a long, long time to catch up in most of the categories (will never beat CRTs in view angle though), but check out the kind of shit coming out this year:

> 3840x2160 @ 120Hz with variable sync and strobing
> 3840x2160 @ 60Hz with HDR, including deeper color gamut
> 200 dpi if sharpness is your thing instead of bigger screens
> ...

>>52406881
>implying ips actually makes lcd image better than crt
The contrast, refresh, gamut, and everything else is still better in the CRT. Because I don't want to bother looking more, have a dude playing a meh game in the dark:
http://youtu.be/tX6Wau5K6mw

>>52407058
you need to run CRTs at 800x600 or 640x480 to exceed the refresh rates and motion clarity of strobed 144 Hz displays, anon.

they alway had finite vsync and hsync limits, so motion clarity came at the expense of spatial clarity.

and yes, IPS with LED backlighting exceeds CRT's gamut.

>>52391283
I can't have an array of 6 crts without having a megadesk
They also require cranes for proper mounting

>>52407119
>spewing bullshit when people can see he's wrong
Whatever you say, kid.

>>52406446

Nigger please I used CRT monitors for a long time before I joined the LCD club. My last CRT was a 19" trinitron which was good for its time, but I still remember what a jump it was from that to an LCD. My first LCD was a little used IBM business display which had pretty poor colors but the resolution and sharpness made up for it. Shortly after I upgraded from that and the screens after that would embarrass the trinitron in everything but maybe the color black.

I don't miss those screens one single bit.

>>52392466
You fucking bellend what a waste!
That thing'll do 1600p!
>>52398119
I won a w900 and it'll go at 1600p and looks clearer than at any other resolution
>>52398150
Nice meem

>>52407170
I'm not even the previous anon, and I probably own nicer CRTs and LCDs than you ever have.

File: Le_tense_orgasm.jpg (44KB, 431x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 431x500px

>Go home for Xmas
>Plug wii to a 480i CRT
>Play WiiQuake
>Those colors and contrast
>That no delay

>>52391400
We used ccfl lcd's for years and they were way worse

beating a dead horse the thread.

>>52407172
Sure thing, bud. Argue against actual pictures and videos all you like.

>>52407229
Not unless you are a doctor, you bullshitter.

>>52405339
>storing music in anything besides flac and opus
Mp3 should have died a long time ago

>>52407439
I am still baffled at the fact opus is so hipster it hurts when there is no upside to using mp3 vs it.

>>52407577
Opus at 256kbit/s sounds way better than mp3 at 256
My music library, converted to opus, is 10gb less than mp3 at the same bitrate

>>52407577
I bet you still use rar archives as well

>>52407623
I am aware, which is why people still using mp3s is so crazy to me. Why hasn't every one switched to opus?

>>52407645
I actually referred to use 7z.

>>52407792
Same reason everyone uses winrar and fraps

Also because there's no support. I had to demand a refund from the poweramp devs because it doesn't support a format that's been out for years

ITT underage faggots who never actually used a CRT monitor.

protip: they were shit.

>>52391229
I can think one reason, screen size/mass ratio, i mean the thing was deeper than it's screen was wide, that's a big no., better to move on and develop things that will eventualy come to surpass CRT, we're gonna get there, believe it or not

>tfw kids today will never experience the joy of degaussing a monitor
Kind of crazy actually

>>52406402
I use 22.5 inches of 1440p on my CRT

>>52408395
It's called SED and the niggers stopped developing i.

>>52391229
>>52391283

Advantages of CRTs ore overblown

>1) Perfect black levels
Not in reality, the screen was grey itself, don't ignore that. Blacks were actually shit becasue of low brightness, so your ambient lighting made darker parts unreadable. Remember how we had to turn off light or use blinds/curtains? That was becasue CRTs were shit.

>2) Flawless off-axis viewing
BS mate. You forgetting them shit screens were curved? The later "flat" versions were deformed even from 90 degrees angle viewpoint.

>3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
LCDs have catched up now, but more importantly - CRTs weren'T persistent and thus you needed at least 85 Hz for comfort, because of the awful flickering. From ergonomics PoV, 60Hz LCDs are better than the flickerscreens.

>4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)

U WOT? I'll ignore that you make no sense, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_mask#/media/File:Shadow_mask_closeup_cursor.jpg

This is how CRT monitors worked - beams randomly hitting these spots, usually not in the center, so everything was fuzzy with rainbows, you never had sharp, defined pixels like with LCDs. Man that sucked so much balls it is not funny. The worst fucking shit about CRTs if you ask me.

>5) Far longer life-span --- I don't think so, their high voltage transformators usually died after some years of service and if not, the image would get more unstable over time. Lot of LCDs before LED backlight would die because of caps in inverter PSU, but I would say the lifespan was a toss between those and CRTs. Nowadays LED backlighted LCDs should last more.

>6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
You can get at most 2-3 dead pixels on a current LCD without being entitled to replacement, that is completely irelevant with the big diagonals we have now. Which reminds me: CRTs had SHIT display sizes.

>>52391229
>>52391283

(continued)

>7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring

Yeah no, anon. It was blurred always, at every resolution - because of the shodow mask, see my link from the first post.

The conclusion is that whoever claims these nonsenses about CRT superiority must be compeltely blind or didn't really use them back then.

I'm confused. Are CRT monitors heavier than comparable sized television s?

>>52408517
This whole post. Wow.
> CRTs weren't persistent
It's a good thing, you stupid cunt.
> 60Hz LCDs are better than the flickerscreens.
Uhhh, just shut up, you idiot.
Most important thing about CRT is 0 imput lag and 0 motion blur.
>if you ask me.
Noone asking you, shit taste.
Looks like that joke, that people cannot see more than 24fps is true for you.
Kill yourself.

File: giphy.gif (2MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x169px

>>52408838
I'm not even him but

>>52408838
Why would I kill myself just because you are absolutely clueless, boy. There are more depressing things in this world.

>>52408838
>Most important thing about CRT is 0 imput lag and 0 motion blur.

This wasn't "most important" thing, it was the one and only good thing about them. Rest of properties were shit and that's why LCD is overally much better tech.

>>52408517
1.) No. The fact the screen is gray doesn't do shit and CRT can get more light, with greater intensity, than any LCD can by sheer nature of its design reach 1000 nits in a standard device, so fuck off with your brightness bullshit.

2.) mate, eat a dick:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023384

3.) No they haven't, look at the youtube video above of the guy playing video games above. There is a clear lag even wit IPS.

4.) The shadow mask was made specifically for that, you imbecile. Because of the geometry of the inside, electrons would simply not pass through unless through the piece in highly predictable manner in very specific regions. Even if you just read the wikipedia article you would know this.

5.) Not the case at all. A good quality CRT was rated for between 30k-50k hours, which is only true for the highest ends of current LCD displays, assuming they are LED.

6.) You could get get CRT up to 43", it's your fault if you could't get a big enough display.

7. The l you were a large enough faggot not to read and realize "hey, shadow masks were made to solve the problem I was talking about, who would have thought."

CRT being obsolete because they are unwidely a power hungry is easy to prove but being an ignorant faggot about it is bullshit

>>52391283
>CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD

they are quite heavy

>>52396504
>USPS would refuse to deliver this item
>UPS would classify it as freight and charge me $350
Alas

production cost, consumers like RESOLUTIONARY THIN.

>>52391229

Literally because they are heavy and take up space, and flat screens look more "futuristic"

/thread

>>52407237
>wii
>no delay

Haha, no. A DAC built into the console doesn't make it magically faster than a standalone DAC.

the problem i had with CRT is they were never going to get to resolutionary tier. I look at my macbook pro, i can't see a single pixel. Black levels close to pefect. 1/50th the weight. If apple did invent the resolutionary class of monitors i might be using CRT

>>52408517
>everything was fuzzy with rainbows, you never had sharp, defined pixels like with LCDs

This is a good thing though. It adds soul and authenticity. I'm not seeing the problem?

>>52395898
I was going to mention those! They're a really sweet technology, I hope we get to experience that one day.

>>52410814
>resolutionary
>displays which were only slightly better than the competition is a revolution in resolution
If there has been a bigger bullshit term in tech than retina display, I haven't heard of it.

>>52410863
Until patent trolls can be killed of, we will forever stagnate. Same with longer than a human lifetime copyright.

>>52411021
have you even look at a retina display? I can tell you haven't. How can you call a monitor tech which makes pixels non-existant NOT revolutionary?

>>52411063
>non-existant
You trolling, aren't you? I am getting trolled in a troll thread.

>>52410814
>i can't see a single pixel.
Why? Too much reflection from glossy macbook screen?

>>52410729
>Haha, no. A DAC built into the console doesn't make it magically faster than a standalone DAC.

Um, but it would. Unless the DAC in the console is broken as all fuck.

And all consoles had a video DAC in them, most often a Sony CXA1145 or CXA1645 or something pin-compatible.

File: 1390258717548.jpg (96KB, 578x718px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 578x718px

>>52411177
>>52411188

File: 1443500522403.jpg (36KB, 367x451px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 367x451px

>>52410836
>This is a good thing though. It adds soul and authenticity.

15 inch viewsonic worth 5 bucks???

mfw i can't find any 17 inch or 19 inch crt's that actually work.

>>52394179
keked hard at truth

>>52391561
>bait
This whole thread is bait.
It's not like you can't buy high res CRT monitors.
www.amazon.com bitches.

>>52391229
Radiation, Power Consumption, High Voltage were great factors for killing it off - Also fucking weight... they weren't cheap, nor cheap to produce

>>52391229
They're also really expensive

>>52410814
Check the ibm t221 out. Its better than the macbook screen and is elite in almost every way. Not for contrastfigs or gamers, but has great colors and DPI.

>>52391283
They don't live longer, IPS screens fix angled viewing, compatibilty is fine on standard modern LCDs, higher hz isn't always a good thing and especially not if you don't play games and stare at your screen all day.

They're more damaging to the eyes and do actually break more easily than an LCD

Muh 1920x1080 WIDESCREEN resolution
Would only go back to crt for nostalgia gaming

>>52411798
Much 2304x1440 widescreen resolution in my CRT

hollywood was the reason for abandoning this tech

flat screens looked more futuristic, took up less space, and produced less heat, this is why they took over

look at movies from the late 90s/early 2000s for this, the matrix being one such movie

>>52411644
>spews the same bullshit that has been disproven in previous posts
/g/ is truly a shithole.

You guys are worse than the /mu/ vinyl hipsters.

CRTs sucked power like a Ukrainian whore, threw off enough heat to boil water, were heavy, had to be degaussed, had so much depth they couldn't be positioned on your desk like an LCD can, and gave off a non-negligible amount of ionizing radiation.

>but muh black levels and response time!

Are you in professional video or image production? Even if you are you'd probably already have an IPS LCD, so this isn't even an objection.

The only reason to have a CRT in 2016 is if you're a poorfag who can't spend a couple hundred bucks on a decent IPS or you're so tragically stuck in the past you're willing to cling to this ancient technology.

>>52411852
No.

They weren't more expensive, they produced better images, were easier on the eyes, had long lives and were relatively robust.

Weight, space, and power consumption. All other reasons are memes or wrong. Just like the betamax and many other technologies, the less unwieldy tech normally wins, no matter how much better the other one might be.

Think about this: why don't we use recirculating ball steering despite it being better in every way? Because it was bulky and unwieldly.

>>52411922
There are plenty of videos showing that IPS is not the same quality in images as the CRT (there is even one in this very thread), even if it much better than TN in that regard.

>>52411798
I have a pentium 2, voodoo3 build + intellimouse, Model M, 120hz CRT for Unreal Tourny nostalgia gaymen... So yes.. you're right...

>>52391229
They cause eye cancer.

>>52406705
he developed games on it

even at low frame rates, being able to view huge amount of a map as well as lots of debug info the the like at the same time would have been pretty beneficial

he probably switched to lower resolutions to test performance while playing though

>>52391229
you underestimate how much more popular LAN's were at the time and how fucking nice it was going from carrying around a damned boulder CRT to a feather weight LCD

also many of us growing up as young kids with poor paying jobs and living on our own for the first time, it sure was nice having you're power bills reduced from dat energy saving monitor.

also during the summer time, damn crt made any room 10 degrees hotter. and CPU's back then also ran much hotter. so your whole damn room during the summer time was an inferno. ANYTHING you could do to cool your room down, was a god send.

and your eyes. oh god. my eyes were always on fire from CRT monitors. LCD is so much more soothing. and yes, I always ran my monitor at max refresh rate, something going all the way down to 320x240 just to get maximum refresh rate and framerate from playing Quake back in the day. it still killed my fucking eyeballs.

the thing took up MY WHOLE DAMN DESK. not to mention this was a 17" monitor. i wanted a bigger monitor someday? thing would need a bigger desk. an LCD i can push back all the way to the wall and have a much better viewing angle. or mount it on an arm.

but i digress, CRT should still be available to everyone. it's a shame everyone chose to abandon them. i think that's a testament to how powerful the problems i mention were.

File: 1408543297950-559d0048a8f5a.jpg (34KB, 450x539px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x539px

>>52398913
>To get to a level where CRT is obsolete we need new technology
There already is you faggots
Read this fucking thread http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1156&start=110
It's called a Laser Beam Scanning Projector and companies keep ignoring it

>>52391229
They stored dangerous amounts of electricity when shut off.

Will the CRT be the new meme on /g/ for the year 2016?

>>52413760
this is really cool. it's basically a low persistence laser desktop monitor with perfect color and shit.

it really makes you wonder if anybody even cares about technology anymore when one guy can make something vastly superior to anything out there with a bunch of cheap shit parts

>>52413852
CRT VR

File: Headbanger_Pit.jpg (20KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x281px

>>52414288

>>52391229
>Why did the industry abandon CRTs?

Because plasma TV.

Too bad, SED/FED tv's was suppose to be the rightful successor to CRTs, but plasma took the baton instead.

now that plasma is dead, OLED is the new successor to emissive type displays/

>>52414284
It's Zero Persistence Nigga
There's no persistence at all,hence 0 motion blur at any Hz/rate
That's an improvement over CRT
It also has a very wide color gamut and the blacks can be perfect by completely turning the lasers off
No Phosphor Trail(since there's no Phosphor used) is also an improvement over CRT etc.

Yet this goddamn tech is only used officially in some shitty Pico Projectors and not for Real Applications like Computer Monitors/TV's/Real Projectors

CRT's are better in some respects to LCD's, but not in every category and not always down the line.

The small benefits of CRT over LCD doesn't make up for the fact that they were more expensive to produce and take up more inventory space, thus the CRT is dead.

>>52414362
>It's Zero Persistence Nigga
how does that even work?

>>52391229
You cant design a good CRT even if your life depended on it. Even the best looking sony CRTs look ugly as fuck by today's standards. Maybe they looked good back then but today they just look out of place and bulky. Light and thin LCDs are a lot better when your interior decorating, which is very important to 99% of the people who dont play quake or retro games

I don't know how I ever survived staring at that flickering screen. I get the fact the refresh rate is higher, but CRTs really hurt the eyes.

>>52415018
it's not even the flickering that hurt my eyes, something else. i've been using strobed backlight lcd's for years now and they don't hurt my eyes like crt's did. even at 60hz, no where near the same.

>>52414587
It doesn't work, he is retarded.
But pico displays can really be better than CRT, because you don't need to wait for phosphor to decay and you don't need shadow mask.

>>52391283
>you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you?

considering how often I have to move other peoples furniture, yes. yes I do.

Started computing on old 13" CRTs back in the early 90s made my way all the way up to a 17" Viewsonic that I kept till about 2002 when I bought a 17" LCD, the different blew my mind away and I promptly bought 2 more not far after and got rid of my CRTs.

Had a 32" CRT TV till about 2006, replaced it with a VA panel LCD for the inputs, no more annoying scan lines, no more red hues from old aging CRT tubes, no more degaussing and other stupid shit like having to tap/hit the damn thing to stop the whine.

CRT eye strain was real, and coupled with fluorescent lights made working a headache.

That alone was reason enough for me to switch to LCDs, my current monitors are LED backlit which I'm very satisfied with.

Hopefully LG will bring down OLED monitor prices fast soon enough for me to upgrade to some down the line.

>>52415671
>CRT eye strain was real

Finally someone admits it.

Most of the CRTs problems can be fixed by your neighborhood's electronic shop, LCDs just a small set of problems can be fixed and is expensive to the point where is just easier to buy a new one.

File: 512876.jpg (27KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x300px

>>52415671
>CRT eye strain
I just remembered this. My parents forced me to use it, but i always removed it when they aren't around.

>>52393802
>PCs were made for work, not to do games and multimedia

>PC
>Personal Computer
Games and multimedia was exactly what they were made for.

File: radiation.png (87KB, 1134x1333px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1134x1333px

>>52406223
>nice meme
The amount of radiation you receive from using a CRT for one year is equivalent to about ten bananas.

>tfw your father-in-law threw out a perfectly functioning FW900, because "it's so old and big!"
>I didn't hear about it until weeks later
>Even if I could've saved it, my girlfriend wouldn't let me, because "it's so old and big!"
;_;

>>52391229
The only good crts were high end crts monitors
Everything else was shit

Also 4:3 is inferior to 16:10

>>52416028

Fuck I forgot those covers even existed.

Its all coming back now

>>52411995
>plenty of videos
Dude, how can a video that was captured on a phone and shat over by youtube prove anything?

What's next, youtube links proving jew conspiracy, russians not shooting down civil planes and americans not having been on the Moon? Just chill and spent your precious time with something better, mate.