If a company put a lot of R&D into making a new crt monitor

Competitive in what metric?

>>57388398
by competitive I mean would there be an advantage over buying it.

>>57388367
The trinitron was developed to the point where you'd see it's aligment relative to the earth's magnetic field affect the picture.

There was nowhere for CRT to go anymore, it was already more than hundred years old tech when it was discontinued.

>>57388460
No 4k 144hz crt monitor :(

>>57388431
Then that's already true for existing CRT monitors. Zero motion blur, no color shift from off-axis viewing, higher contrast and better black levels as compared to LCDs, etc. CRTs have plenty of strong points, the problem is that 99% of the time the practical downsides outweigh the benefits.

>>57388506
>144Hz
Why?

>>57388506
4k would get difficult as well as the widescreen created all sorts of geometry issues in the HDCRTs that were made.
1080p capable tubes exist though.

Also reminds me of those IBM T220 and T221 monitors from ~2001 that are still the highest resolution monitors available.

>>57388580
I just didn't know if they stop getting better because no one bothered making them better or some physical limit. Reason for the thread

File: image.jpg (36KB, 372x204px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 372x204px

>>57388460
>nowhere to go
Idk make them slimmer?

>a big vacuum tube
>cheaper than a literal piece of printed plastic
yeah no

>>57388367
The problem with all CRT tech is it has horrible contrast.

OLED is a better tech in all regards..

>>57388580
>Also reminds me of those IBM T220 and T221 monitors from ~2001 that are still the highest resolution monitors available.
lol. no.

>>57388900
Oh right, the 5k displays.
I want a 16:10 though, QUXGA-W would be perfect.

>>57388868
I don't care about price

>>57388506
>16:9
why

File: 1464375877090.jpg (47KB, 468x484px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 468x484px

>>57388895
>CRT
>horrible contrast

>>57389372
Dynamic contrast yes.

File: 1464449515056.jpg (77KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x639px

>>57389388
>Dynamic contrast

>>57389408
Yes the contrast rating that actually matters.

File: 1389967253926.jpg (155KB, 762x900px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 762x900px

>>57389445

File: CRTcontrastratio.png (121KB, 909x694px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 909x694px

>>57389460
>Mexican that loves CRTs
I'd feel sorry but that would be a lie.

I generally avoid the CRT threads because spics take them over and the rest is just underage fanboys that don't know shit and parrot reddit or some celeb.

CRTs just aren't that great and other technologies took over for obvious reasons.

SED never
I cry evertim

>>57388431
You mean like the CRTs we have already over a decade?

>>57389388
>>57389445
Chiming in to tell you that you have it backwards. Dynamic contrast is the one where you can compare fullscreen one color to fullscreen another. The one where you'll see figures like a gajillion to one. Dynamic contrast matters, but less than static contrast, e.x. ANSI contrast, which uses a checkerboard pattern to compare the difference in adjacent patches. Now please fuck off if you can't keep track of simple, literally self-explanatory terminology.

>>57389521
And here you post an image that says exactly what I just said. And you still don't realize your mistake. Are you really this dumb?

>>57389705
Try reading the image again. Also I'm not talking about marketing speak.

>>57389521
Maybe because there hasn't been any development of new crts

>>57389906
Were you projecting with the Mexican thing? It's cool that you're trying to use English, but maybe for technical subjects you should look for something in your native language. But go ahead, point out where I'm "wrong".

File: 1413923958994.png (243KB, 268x557px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 268x557px

Because new technology is for weak, it's the same for tv.
¿Want to move your 29" CRT TV? don't be a pussy and the lift 30kg+ box, while any modern screen with a relative same size/market target don't weight over 10kg, and the same goes for CRT screens.

HOW?>>57388460
>where you'd see it's aligment relative to the earth's magnetic field affect the picture.

>>57390509
CRT's are affected by magnetic fields

>>57389557
The Field Emission Display (FED) would have been even better. It would have been everything SED could have been, but with logical pixels.

>>57390711
https://www.google.com/patents/US6559602

FIG. 12C illustrates another embodiment of a driving technique, which enables cathode half-pixel addressing similar to that of a CRT using an aperture grill. In this embodiment, a positive voltage is applied to the gate wire 1206 relative to the grounded emitter line 406. Additionally, a negative voltage is applied to gate wires 1204 and 1208 with respect to the grounded emitter line 406. This generates an electric field that causes electrons to be emitted from approximately half of cathode sub-pixel region 1212 and approximately half of cathode sub-pixel region 1214, which is labeled as cathode half-pixel region 1216. Advantageously, this appears as though an anode sub-pixel region (a dot) in between two previously defined anode sub-pixel regions (two dots) of the phosphor line is illuminated. As such, an anode half-pixel region is defined as a portion of a phosphor line occupying portions of two adjacent anode sub-pixel regions. This is illustrated in FIG. 12F. This creates the appearance of a greater resolution than is physically there, or in other words, creates a pseudo resolution. For example, by applying half-pixel addressing and varying the intensity level of the electron emission, an FED is created which appears to have much greater resolution that it actually has. Thus, such an FED will have a higher clarity than a fixed pixel conventional FED. Therefore, analog-like performance is created since the designer can obtain a variable resolution on a fixed pixel display. This is a departure from known FEDs, which provide fixed performance in resolution due to the fixed number of cathode sub-pixels (i.e., the fixed number of electron emitters 112 or emitter cones of FIGS. 1-3). This half-pixel addressing is similar to half pixel addressing techniques performed in CRT type devices employing an aperture grill design. Such an example of a conventional CRT including an aperture grill includes TRINITRON CRTs ...

>>57390529
I know that, I don't understand how less perfect CRTs weren't affected by Earth magnetic field that much.

>>57388367

In terms of black levels and contrast, yes.

In terms of resolution, geometry stability, not.

>>57388460
>The trinitron was developed to the point where you'd see it's aligment relative to the earth's magnetic field affect the picture.
All CRTs do that unless it has circuitry to compensate for Earth's magnetic field or is inside a Helmholtz coil.

One major improvement would be to put the DAC inside the CRT
I remember having an high end CRT, 21" @ 1600x1200 resolution and it made a difference between a regular VGA and a component BNC cable.
I assume HDMI to the monitor, and the DAC inside, would be better.
Also modern GPUs probably have shitty cheap DACs.

File: B4RIv.jpg (202KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1280x960px

The Sony FW-900 is still decent.
2304 x 1440 at 80 Hz

Not going to happen. Plasma was supposed to replace CRT but their bulkiness and expensive components got replaced by cheap TFT. Never going to happen. OLED has a far better chance because it is also light but still needs to become more mainstream before we have a good replacement.

>>57390133
The PVM 20L5 is on the pinnacle of CRTs right there.
>>57390155
Nice attempt at sliding, kiddo.

File: Indextron1.jpg (100KB, 843x742px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 843x742px

>>57388633
The technology was definitely hitting its limits. There was a reason why higher resolution displays used an aperture grill instead of a shadow mask. The higher the resolution the smaller the holes in the shadow mask must be. Smaller holes means more shadow mask surface are is exposed to the beam, which in turn means more energy absorbed by the shadow mask. More energy absorbed means more heat that has to dissipated and that it is more likely to warp. An aperture grill has less surface area but the pitch was getting so fine that heat dissipation was again an issue. Resolutions much higher than 1600 x 1200 or 1920 x 1200 would probably have either required that a more robust alloy be developed for use in the aperture grill, or that the beam-index tube be perfected.

I would actually die a happy man if a kickass 4K Indextron was actually made.

Fuck modern displays and their fixed pixel, sample-and-hold bullshit.

Not really, no. But what you could do is fill a niche for video games.

>>57391063
I'm "sliding" by replying to your post in a topic-relevant manner and increasing it's visibility? Dumbass. I'll ask again, where was I "wrong"? You posted that CRTs have bad dynamic contrast, which is wrong. As "proof" you posted an image showing that CRTs have bad *static* contrast as compared to other display technologies, reinforcing the fact that you don't understand the terms you're using. When called out on it, suddenly you're no longer interested in addressing the subject, avoiding any questions on the matter. I don't expect you to admit you're wrong, but actions speak louder than words. Good enough for me.

>>57391265
I seem to recall that a Chinese company tried to make new CRTs for old arcade machines. They failed.

>>57390184
Weight and volume are tremendously expensive to ship in bulk. Light, thing monitors and TVs mean more can fit in a shipping container.

>>57391322
Lets all just calm down and install Gentoo. Don't waste your effort on someone who is obviously a fucking moron.

>>57391322
>>57391553
That contrast is ansi spec. It's not labeled as anything. Kill yourself, hombre.

>>57388580
>1080p capable tubes exist though.

Nearly any half decent 20 inch PC CRT could do 2048x1536. My old 17" syncmaster from 2003 could do 1920x1080 (it looked stupid in 4:3 though - I normally used it in 1280x960@75Hz).

>>57390711
Wouldn't logical pixels be a disadvantage, because then you'd have a fixed resolution instead of a variable one like on CRTs? Plus then you also have dead pixels.

>>57391825
>Wouldn't logical pixels be a disadvantage, because then you'd have a fixed resolution instead of a variable one like on CRTs? Plus then you also have dead pixels.
You are thinking of physical pixels, which CRTs don't have. CRTs have logical pixels in that they are nothing more than a collection of subpixels that can be amassed to form a single pixel of arbitrary size.

File: speccy.jpg (24KB, 516x414px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 516x414px

>>57388367
>mfw my crt is still competitive
>1 million more pixels than 1080p
>600,000 less pixels than 1440p

Why not just make one that's slightly thinner? That's literally the only reason people moved on.

>>57388398
Resolution

A CRT with 4k resolution, would that even be possible?

I wouldn't even mind if it was fat

File: curtis mathis 2.png (75KB, 330x162px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 330x162px

>>57390184
>30kg

lol I laugh at your little pussy television

If it doesn't weigh as much as a dresser then your CRT is too small, like your penis

>>57392102
But your aperture stripe pitch is only fine enough to cleanly resolve ~1600 horizontal lines.

>>57392422
My CRT doesn't give a shit, looks great even with that resolution. Just need to enlarge everything because it's only 19inch.

File: station_livingroom.jpg (100KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1280x960px

CRTs are pretty comfy if you don't mind the weight.

>>57393978
>goodwill, the living room

get a NUC and a LCD for fucks sake and save around 300 Watts when browsing /g/

>>57393978
holy shit 1999

CRTs use more electricity than LEDs. They're bulkier and heaver. They're more costly to recycle. There is no reason to bring them back. A better solution would be to improve LED screens.

>>57388639
> Don't understand physics
The larger screens the ticker they need to be.

TFTs nowadays still have shitty panels.

You either live with washed out colours and pure black levels or you have to live with latency and inputlag issues.

Also, even though there hasn't been any significant improvement over the last several years, they are very expensive.

File: IMG_20160721_190925.jpg (3MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4096x2304px

step aside

its coming home

>>57389521
>other technologies took over for obvious reasons.

Small and cheap are the only reasons really.

>>57396702
What about the advances to glass manufacturing?

>>57388431
>4K CRTs are still a thing
>1ms response time CRTs are still a thing
>144Hz+ CRTs are still a thing
>CRTs with wider color gamut are still a thing
I don't get it. They don't even need to research anything, just get back at producing them.

>>57388367
Yes, absolutely. Nothing beats the CRT "look".

>>57401848
>4k CRT

This is not a thing. Or if it is I've never heard of it. The only way I could think of getting away with it would be to program an interlaced 4k video mode.

>>57388367
It could never be competitive just on the basis of space saving and production costs, not even factoring in the performance aspects.

>>57398237
Text readability was the biggest one that wiped CRT's biggest market out. That being businesses.
OLED has made CRT's as irrelevant as ever.
>>57401848
>>57402033
They're around. What that underage retard wont tell you is modern video cards wont work with them.

Matter of fact no modern video cards work with any of those crazy monitors. The uselessness of them and the rarity are why they're hipster obscure pieces/retard wank material.

>>57400002
You could get thinner glass, that might save a couple of millimetres (16ths of an inch) but it is so little that the only thing a casual consumer notice is that it costs a lot more

>>57388367
My CRT has a max vertical frequency of 160Hz, and that's low compared to some that I've seen, So to answer your question, Yes.

>>57389521
/thread

>>57392501
Your CRT may not give a shit, but it still can't fully resolve those extra pixels; however, running those high resolutions will give you some free anti-aliasing.

>>57395782
But CRTs are better than LCDs, desu~

>>57395872
LED monitor = LCD monitor with LED backlight. LCD is an inherently shitty technology.

>>57407509
>LCD is all one technology
Son I

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpe.jpg (25KB, 492x246px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 492x246px

>>57408634
what

"LED" in the consumer space refers to LCD displays with LED backlights, as opposed to the older CCFL backlights

you can made a display out of only LEDs, but they're only used in commercial signing

>>57407509
>>57408717
Considering LCD tech is a better option to CRTs in just about every way except for blacks so deep the human eye can't tell...No. IPSand VA have come a long way.

File: DoYouHaveAutism.png (63KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 300x300px

>>57388367
>Noticeably better color display

>MASSIVELY more power required
>MUCH harder to get rid of when it breaks
>WAY more difficult to fix if you DON'T wanna get rid of it
>Resolution is incomparable
>MUCH clunkier and hard to find space for or move to another area
>MUCH more susceptible to magnetic interference

I'd say, overall, yes, because people are stupid and would buy it anyway.
Just look at Hillary Clinton. She's still, somehow, popular, even with all the felonies. (Maybe the indictments will end that, though)

>>57408819
idk, i friend of mine replaced his tv a couple weeks ago, and the black levels of OLED shit all over all of the LCD variants available at the shop

current LCD tech + the hack known as localised backlight dimming can only go so far

i will say that OLED beats CRT when it comes to contrast/black levels (but, like LCD, suffers from sample-and-hold, so motion quality still sucks next to crt)

>>57408855
>comparing TVs
It was probably a piece of shit considering 99.99999 repeating of LCD TVs are literally Korean/Chinese shit boxes. See the later Sony sets for what LCD tech can do.

Also not sure what the point in bringing up OLED is because that is objectively better than CRTs in every way.

>>57408819
>Considering LCD tech is a better option to CRTs in just about every way except for blacks so deep the human eye can't tell.
Don't forget that CRTs are better with motion.

>>57408855
>i will say that OLED beats CRT when it comes to contrast/black levels (but, like LCD, suffers from sample-and-hold, so motion quality still sucks next to crt)
I can't wait until they start producing strobing OLEDs.

>>57409069
>Don't forget that CRTs are better with motion.
There are multiple different strobe technologies used on LCDs.

>I can't wait until they start producing strobing OLEDs.
Why would you want one? A proper OLED display should have no blur a high refresh rate.

>>57388367

There is no way you can produce:

27" CRT
Less than 100 lbs
Costs less than $150 in raw materials

We're talking about $150 just on shipping.

>>57409086
>There are multiple different strobe technologies used on LCDs.
Too bad they are on TN panels with inferior colors and blacks.

>Why would you want one? A proper OLED display should have no blur a high refresh rate.
Refreshing more than once per frame produces multiple images, hence why plasmas with their 600Hz refresh were still outperformed by CRTs with regards to motion.

>>57409171
>Too bad they are on TN panels with inferior colors and blacks.
Sony uses VA panels. They have more than excellent colors and are true black to your eye.
>Refreshing more than once per frame produces multiple images, hence why plasmas with their 600Hz refresh were still outperformed by CRTs with regards to motion.
That would be a software issue than in the case of OLEDs since pixel response is non existed on OLED.

>>57409224
>That would be a software issue than in the case of OLEDs since pixel response is non existed on OLED
I'm pretty sure that's a brain issue.

>>57409287
You're thinking at refresh rates limited to current LCD tech. OLED is very well capable of 240hz and beyond. You combine that with gsync and you got one of hell of a monitor. Too bad it'll probably never be made or at least not for years.