Does anyone still use a CRT as their primary or secondary monitor?

>>57619731

Higher refresh rate

>>57619813
But modern monitors can do 140hz now?

>>57619731
I used to use it for streaming old fighting games. Shit makes melee look fabulous even though 480p is still shit.

>>57619731
I use it as my secondary monitor for watching old television programs. It feels better.

>>57619731
I use a 17" CRT as my primary monitor because I play games that run at lower resolutions and therefore look like shit on a LCD or LED monitor. My secondary monitor is a 32" HDTV I use to watch movies and anime on.

>>57619731
There're comfy. Besides, better use them now for as long as they still work.

>mfw glorious 22'' Mitsubishi Diamondtron tube

>free head aches

>>57621244
CRTs don't give me headaches ever

Most CCFLs don't unless they only use 2 CCFL then I tend to get raped by them

LED backlighting I have major issues with though thanks to PWM and the spectrum

headache free more like!!

>>57619731
No. I have an old one I plug in occasionally expecting it to be "better" in some way, but it never is. The eye fatigue alone is a deal killer.

It's obsolete.

I use two, but I also use LCD.

I use CRT because of the better colours and scalable resolutions. The motion quality is also a huge plus. No LCD or even OLED I've ever seen has colours close to my FW-900.

But then I use LCD because it's more convenient and power efficient. It's better for a work environment that doesn't involve colour work because it takes up less of the desk.

I don't advocate the use of CRT for everyone. I thik for the majority of people LCD is more suitable. I appreciate the better quality for some things though.

File: Image_8.jpg (190KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x533px

>>57619731
I had an LCD but it died (chink capacitors blew up, I should replace them one day and it'll probably work again). A friend was about to throw away his daily driver CRT the same week so I picked it up and have been using it "temporarily" for a few years now.
I'm going to buy an LCD again, probably next month, but I'm a bit afraid of dead/stuck/etc (sub)pixels and how RMAs of those etc. are handled here in Yuropoorland. It's pretty hard to find good information on that subject here.

yep a ton of dropout hipster spergs who want to pretend to be better than everyone else

>>57619836
You can't attempt to use modern information to try to talk to them, they're essentially monitor creationists and their information is from 2003

>>57619731

I wonder if there are any 16:9 CRT monitors... That would be a sight to behold.

File: 0in0.jpg (60KB, 984x672px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 984x672px

>>57623782

Oh shit, what

>>57619731
I do. It's nice to have a second monitor, and it was a free monitor, so why not?

>>57623782
>>57623810
They exist, very rare, only made in the transitional period of 2004 and 2005 where everyone was moving on to LCD. Also equally worthless as any other CRT as "true" crt memelets are only interested into whatever shitty meme they've tricked themselves into buying at large which is the trinitrons. we have IPS now if you want "muh colors". however talking to any crt shit about this is impossible because they have blocked all new information coming to them so they don't even know ips exists

>>57623872
IPS monitors are still slow.

>>57623872
IPS has much worse contrast than CRT and a lower colour space for most LCDs.

Source: I have a widescreen CRT monitor and Eizo LCD monitor. Both are miles better than the 1000:1 crap you're probably running.

None of the people claiming to use these in this thread are posting pics.

They are good for games, especially fps at a high refresh rate. If you can't afford a newer 120/144hz Benq they are the next best thing.

>>57623782
Sony GDMFW-900

Lets settle this once and for all. The ONLY reason to use a CRT computer monitor in 2016 is because of its lack of native resolution. For everything else there's IPS LCD and soon OLED, the latter of which is superior to anything else if you only ever run your display at a single fixed resolution.

>>57624568
What about cost?
My crt was free, an OLED monitor costs a lot more than free.

File: IMG_20160720_132928.jpg (2MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x2304px

step aside boys

one and only 16:10 CRT monitor, it can be programmed with WINdas or something like that, right ?

BEST OF THE BEST

>>57624774
Right. CRT also has cost-to-performance ratio. OLED is expensive as fuck for what it is.

>>57619731
No motion blur. Makes playing shmups more fun.

>>57619813
Lower/faster response time

>>57624568
Black level of a good CRT still easily beats LCD for dark room viewing of dark-themed games/media.

Pretty sure motion performance (not just refresh rate, but lack of motion blur) is still better on a CRT, but the gap there has been narrowed a lot.

OLED should solve these two but it's been coming "soon" for like a decade now and is still plagued with problems in current applications (e.g. phones with burn-in).

>>57624910
CRT has burn in as well. At least with OLED we have a chance of screen savers becoming mainstream again.

File: john_Carmack_working.jpg (41KB, 468x332px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 468x332px

>>57624860
Holy shit is that the same model John Carmack had?

>>57624965
>carmack had greater-than 1080p resolution in the 90s when the rest of us plebs only had 800x600

>>57619731
they're a natural choice for older systems on their lack of a fixed resolution alone

I also just don't give a fuck enough to go look for a nice used 1600x1200 flat panel because I have other things I'd rather spend the money on first

File: 2016-05-20_23-06-08_673.jpg (966KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 3264x2448px

Yea

File: IMG_20160724_203346.jpg (2MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x2304px

>>57624965

better, it has an unbelievable quality image

and for a 24" screen it goes up to 2304x1440 which is insane

>>57625033
Not just older systems. There's no other display technology that can accept arbitrary resolutions and display them well.

>>57624860
Ah, the mighty FW-900 beast.

>>57624983
He was fucking Carmack, once Doom sold millions of copies he could afford almost anything in tech there was.

>>57624965
Why does the screen content look so horribly blue?

>>57625143
CRT monitors have a white point of 9600K which is blue as fuck. Some people like it, others prefer 6500K which looks more neutral. The camera used to take the picture also has an effect on what you see.

>>57625094
My Diamondtron goes up to 2048x1536@75 Hz.

>>57619731
I alternate between using it as my primary and secondary every few weeks, I keep it around for emulators, visual novels, 4:3 videos, and imageboard browsing because let's be honest there's so much fucking wasted space on a 16:9 4chan tab

>>57625168
How many inches is it? Is text even readable at that high of a resolution?

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

30KB, 683x455px

>>57624965
carmack had an intergraph workstation with a 28HD96

>>57625185
The tube is 22 inches (of which about 20 inches are visible). In its younger days it was surprisingly usable (although I always preferred a lower resolution at a higher refresh rate than 75Hz), but by now the tube is a bit worn and it's not as sharp anymore due to a number or factors (a significant one is RGB convergence drift which manifests in most tubes with times and impacts sharpness at higher resolutions quite a lot). Also pushing an older monitor by running an extreme display mode is better avoided. It's "native" (or rather "preferred", as CRTs don't have native resolutions in the sense that LCD panels do) mode is 1600x1200@85 Hz, and for that it's still quite good.

>>57625158
>CRT monitors have a white point of 9600K
But that's wrong. Like any display, it can be calibrated to have a 9600K white point (though I suspect you meant 9300K) but that's far from an inherent property of CRTs.

>>57625317
Right, I meant 9300K. Most CRTs I've seen display white as 9300K if the RGB sliders are set to the same value, hence my assumption that it's an inherent property.

i did but cancer exists and i'm old enough to be afraid of it

File: IMG_20160720_121937.jpg (2MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x2304px

>>57625272

that why I run(rarely) my FW900 mostly at 1920 x 1080 very rarely at 2048x1536, but it can go even higher

its in perfect nick with AG still intact

File: FB_IMG_1465155689626.jpg (6KB, 271x255px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 271x255px

>>57621272
>unless they only use 2 CCFL then I tend to get raped by them

wew lad

>>57625272
>>57625361
The P76 I've been using for 6 years goes up to 1600x1200 but I run it at 1280x960, which is what the control panel shows as recommended. Glad I fell for the Trinitron meme, the image is maximum comfy.

>>57625395
Many of the later run-of-the-mill 17'' CRTs went up to 1600x1200, but mostly only at 60Hz and the image looked like shit, thus almost everyone ran them at 1024x768@85Hz anyway.

>>57621272
>CRTs
>CCFLs

CRTs are CRTs (duh), it's older LCD panel monitors which have CCFL backlights.

>>57619731
Yes, gamers.

>Just curious, but why?
Low latency, low response time, high refresh rate

>>57625506
Try reading the post before you respond, moron

>>57621272
>LED backlighting I have major issues with though thanks to PWM and the spectrum
It's your own fault for buying shitty PWM-backlit devices. Why don't you spend more than $200 on a device you spend all day staring into?

>>57625344
RGB sliders make adjustments relative to a set point defined by the rest of the control circuitry. If that set point happens to be 9300K (which it almost always was before D65 took over) then putting the sliders to the same value will give you a 9300K white point. That's not a function of the tube or phosphors, it's just hardware level calibration. There's no reason it couldn't be any other reasonable value.

File: th14scanlines.jpg (3MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2688x1520px

>>57625460
1280x960 is 75Hz, which is flicker-free and certainly better than 60Hz.

>>57625521
Don't forget the scanlines. On an LCD or OLED display this would look like someone smeared oil over the screen.
inb4 >>>/vr/

File: the-cyka-blyat-starter-pack.jpg (91KB, 735x509px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 735x509px

>>57625521
CУКA БЛЯTЬ

>>57624923
>CRT has burn in as well
I've never seen burn-in on a modern PC monitor, though. Only projection CRTs, scopes, and security monitors. The OLED displays used in smartphones seem way more susceptible to it than CRTs ever were, which worries me.

File: SamuraiShodown1_zpseef54a8d.jpg (138KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x768px

Scanlines

>>57625675
>I've never seen burn-in on a modern PC monitor, though.
There's no such thing as a modern CRT

Also that means you were probably too young to remember screensavers

>>57625694
>simulated scanlines

>>57619813
That's a shit reason. Buy a 144hz monitor.

File: a.jpg (1MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3648x2736px

i have an old sdtv which i use for older games/videos

>>57625767
and be locked into a single resolution with backlight bleed

>>57625711
>you were probably too young to remember screensavers
No, and by modern I meant something along the lines of late 1960s or early 1970s and newer. The age of rectangular color CRTs, especially Trinitrons and slotted shadow masks with inline guns. Those are modern to me.

What's with all this niggerposting lately?

>>57625711
There are industry-grade CRTs still produced. Expensive as fuck though.

>>57625767
How about superior color reproduction and black levels? I can't believe nobody mentioned these yet.

>>57625856
Yes, CRTs might be cheap, but they're superior to more-expensive LCD monitors in many ways.

>>57625882
>>57625792

>>57621216
Mitsubishi Group consumer products are just all underrated. What a goddamn shame.

>>57619731
Only Poor Fags

>>57619731
They have more accurate colors, among other things. I miss them, at least they don't have fucking light bleeding.

The make for good space heaters. Hook up a large CRT to a 3+GHz Prescott computer and you don't need to turn your heating on.

>>57625918
All this "thin and light" form over function bullshit is ruining technology. A desktop monitor isn't going anywhere so why care about it being thin and lose all the benefits of perfect contrast, non-fixed resolution, and lack of motion blur or scaler lag?

>>57621244
I only get headaches at 60hz. At 80hz I don't get headaches at all.

My in-laws have a Sanyo widescreen 720p TV. Dunno if 1080i.32" I believe. It has a hdmi port on the back. Should I save it from the trash and hook up my old Sega genesis and ps1 to it? Play some einhander again.

>>57626010
Do it. Your eyes will thank you.

>>57625968
Large CRTs are very bulky (especially high resolution monitors are very heavy - 22''
Diamondtrons weigh about 30 kilograms, while the Sony FW-900 weighs about 45 kilograms), more costly to manufacture, to store, and to transport, use significantly more power, have imperfect geometry, are difficult to recycle because of bulkiness and materials used (some heavy metals like lead and mercury)... that's all just to much to keep them in the mainstream. Nerds are still willing to cope with all the above in exchange for the advantages which CRTs offer, but certainly neither the average Joe nor businesses which just need monitors to be as cost-effective as possible.

>>57619813
My roommate uses CRT for his fighting games. Apparently it matters.

>>57619836
You seem unsure when you use that question mark.

>>57626078
I do to, and so does anyone else autistic enough to care about single-frame precision, something fighting games tend to make use of a lot.

File: 1472936309656.jpg (251KB, 970x651px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 970x651px

>>57626038
Well I'll try it out at there house before taking it when the time comes. Any tests to do to see if its worth it? I know the Sony trinitron TV seem to be the go too so I'm not sure what the difference would be with what they got. Has built in speakers, hdmi, component, composite and s-video iirc. Wouldn't a built in digital tuner either.

>>57626101
I guess I need to get a new monitor for DMC.

>>57626105
Fukin phone.
>their
>to
>it's

>wouldn't doubt it has a built in digital tuner.

>>57626088
A question mark can be used to show uncertainty in a declarative sentence?

>>57626105
Since it has HDMI bring your laptop and hook that up. Generate a test image (most of them can be found online) and see if there's anything immediately noticeable. Check for common issues like screen burn or offset convergence, make sure the inputs you'll want to use work. Also bring an old console if possible and hook that up.

>>57626142
If you plan to watch TV with it bring an antenna or if they have cable hook that up.

>>57625968
>>57626047
I couldn't fit a CRT on my desk if I wanted to. Even a tiny one, and I definitely don't want tiny.

CRTs can still be cool for various reasons, but they're just not practical anymore.

I do, because all the good LCD tech is only available in fatass widescreen monitors. I have plenty of depth and height available in my setup, but minimal width, so widescreen isn't viable for me.

>>57626858
Did desks start shrinking or something? Just get a bigger desk.

File: evolution-of-the-desk-designboom-02.jpg (139KB, 818x545px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 818x545px

>>57627443
>Did desks start shrinking or something?
They have

My old desk that was built in the 70s was like 4 feet deep. My current desk is half that size.

>>57619731
I have a 1024x768 75Hz LCD as a secondary for my laptop. Sometimes I'll play games on it, but it's mostly for my media player while I browse 4chinz

melee
Though on the other hand I would like to know the best way to hook up my computer to my crt to play some old school games on it.

>>57625868
Where???

>>57627736
>4 feet
what the shit

mine is like 40cm deep

>>57619731
I saw one of those old iMacs at Cisco, though I think that was either a joke or decoration.

File: the_future.jpg (40KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x500px

>>57627736
people in the 70s had houses. Now we have NEETs in basements and small flats for the working class.

Small desks and laptop desks rule the world.

>>57625357

Ahh the old "everyone who watched TV or used a computer before 2006 has cancer" meme.

>>57627443
>>57626858

This, how come every one had room for a CRT 10 years ago, and now suddenly nobody does?

What are you filling that space with today?

>>57629395
Porn

File: 1477624756366.png (221KB, 537x600px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 537x600px

Mr Braun?

>>57628731
Yeah if you're a fucking midget

>>57619731
Used one at work. It was horrible, but it can give better black woman.

>>57619731

Theoretical zero input lag and response time
Infinite contrast ratio
No native resolution

It's a very small niche, but there are these and a couple more reasons

>>57629954
>Theoretical zero input lag
Not necessarily, and not really a CRT-unique thing.

Input lag is just a measure of how quickly the embedded logic chip in your display can process the image. Every “modern” CRT does this just as much as LCDs. (Rule of thumb: If your display has buttons that let you open up a menu and control the image parameters, it has a processing chip)

>No native resolution
Simply not true. Every color CRT has a native resolution; the red, green and blue phosphors have to be in distinct and fixed locations. The density and placement of these phosphors defines your resolution.

>Infinite contrast ratio
Also not really true. It depends on the quality of your aperture / shadow mask, but all have some amount of light leakage, residual brightness from excited phosphors, ambient reflections, etc.

A good CRT can go up to 10000:1 contrast or so, but it's by no means “infinite”. It's just much better than TN/IPS.

>>57630054
>(Rule of thumb: If your display has buttons that let you open up a menu and control the image parameters, it has a processing chip)
protip: being able to overlay things does on a crt doesn't mean the image is going throught that or any other chip

what happens is that when the chip wants to draw to the screen, it swaps the external input signal for its own mid-refresh, it has no effect on display lag whatsoever

>>57619836
modern monitors can do 140 Hz and there are some announced that will do 200 Hz or more but they will never get the same displaylag because of the technology behind them
also CRTs scale any resolution and a huge array of refresh rates you throw at them, while LCDs and other flatscreens have "fixed" pixel rate so to speak

>>57630054
>Simply not true. Every color CRT has a native resolution; the red, green and blue phosphors have to be in distinct and fixed locations. The density and placement of these phosphors defines your resolution.
not completely accurate, the phosphors may not be uniformly lit

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-22 at 2.50.40 AM.jpg (139KB, 935x700px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 935x700px

>>57619731
I do.

I have a slow-scan CRT, amber, for running terminals in max comfort.

>>57630363
actually, how the fuck do you do that

never though I would have the chance to ask

if there's a market why aren't anyone making CRTs today?

>>57630054

Uhh no.

Just because both possess a processing chip, it doesn't mean they do the same thing. All it is doing on crt's is separating the rgb signals and setting horizontal and vertical sync, which puts the lag in the nanoseconds range, since it's processing the input immediately and never storing it.
Also you're confusing the working mechanics of analog and digital output. It's not if the phosphors are fixed or not, because they are, but in fact they are more numerous and packed than the maximum resolution's pixels, which is usually limited by the circuitry board's bandwidth. Essentially a set resolution of XxY divides the display space in X equally spaced horizontal values and Y vertical ones (hence no native resolution), and all phosphors assume a very approximmate setting (remember the output is a single analog waveform) at their locations.

I can give you the contrast, but at this point we're throwing external factors in it. Assuming a perfect environment condition, no wear, correct build, etc., we get that infinite contrast ratio, since to achieve blacks the electron beam does nothing

>>57630363

>max comfort
>no numpad

that is cool though, only acceptable darkfaggotry is authentic darkfaggotry

>>57630440
Good point

File: Ivanov Komp.jpg (255KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1500x1000px

I don't actually give a fuck about CRT.

But why are fucking 4:3 monitors so damn hard to come by?

All I want is a modern day panel so an IPS 4:3 LCD that doesn't cost $400

Does anyone know any good monitors for retro gaming.

Like a 15" 1024×768 or something.

so is there an actual argument against why people shouldn't want a good contrast ratio and response times? HZ =! response time

>>57625506
No, I know that.

I guess I wasn't specific enough with what I was saying I was saying CRT and CCFL monitors are fine for me while LED backlighting tends to be eye and brain destroying.

LED becoming the only thing you can easily get is making my life real difficult now tfw

>Being a sensitive autist
>kill me

File: My RPN machines 2.jpg (639KB, 1729x1296px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1729x1296px

>>57630419
>how the fuck do you do that
just takes a normal composite signal

>>57630458
>numpad
I have numpads

>>57630567
>switch any wide screen monitor into a 4:3 mode
>profit

I think people aren't pointing out the obvious.

It's a black person using a computer.

>>57619731
I used to use it for FPS games because high refresh rate. Now I just use it for nostalgia.

>>57630666
Whoa there, satan.

>LED backlighting tends to be eye and brain destroying
Supposedly yes, yet LED lighting is being force upon everybody. For now you can still dodge LEDs by buying halogen bulbs, but all modern TFT panels are LED-backlighted and afaik there's no exceptions (kinda like with laptops - "take chiclet keyboard or gtfo").

I still have the first CRT I ever bought. A 19 inch Amptron from 1999.

Still works, but sitting in my closet.

>>57629395
People had no other choice but to put a CRT monitor on their desk if they wanted to use a computer, so they wouldn't complain. Also, desks could be positioned a foot or so away from the wall so the CRT's back could be accommodated without losing to much desk space. Nowadays people are used to a monitor taking only very little space, and aren't willing to go back to the compromises they used to be faced with in the past.

>>57619731
I want to use my old tv as my monitor.

File: Trinitron.5.jpg (645KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 2048x1536px

>>57633594
Make your dreams come true.

>>57633808
A E S T H E T I C

used one i've found in the attic as a second monitor for my laptop for a while untill the novelty wore off.
still have it but it's back to collecting dust upstairs.

>>57632068
I still use mine for battlefield. Display is starting to go dim though so I'm sad.

>>57621216
Mitsu DP2070sb reporting in.
It actually blows FW900 out of the water excpet for aspect ratio.
I might actually get another unit just in case.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>57636202
Oops forgot the pic

>>57636202
In what ways in particular does it beat out the FW900?

>>57636448
Highest specs of all CRT monitors, better AG coating, brighter and sharper image, no need for windas - after 13 years it's nearly the same as it was out-of-box. In fact, it has some microprocessors responsible for adjusting various parameters such as convergence, etc so there's no need for manual adjustements.
The only drawback is aspect ratio.

>>57633808
I also have tiny Trinitron.

Mine's the one they made for the secret Japanese space station.

>>57638083
Model/pics?

File: protectedimage.php.jpg (37KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x300px

>>57638168
KV-8AD10
It's a "prosumer" field monitor / tiny TV. Really made to go onto the Japanese space frames that are secretly in orbit.

>>57638267
>KV-8AD10
Ah yes, those are sweet little monitors.

>>57638267
Did you use it to watch astro boy?