Why did we let the monitor industry go backwards?

>>62367941
its the cia

>muh size
>muh power consumption
I love my CRT.

>>62367941
>Comparing TFT to a CRT

>>62367941
normalfags ruin everything

>>62367941
HURP DURP, ZOMG A SHITTY 4:3 DELL MONITOR FROM 2004 LOOKS WORSE THAN MUH CRT, Y MONITOR INDUSTRY GO BACK?!

>>62367941
CRTs are great, but modern IPS panels are superior.
Obviously your 2005 LCD panel is shit compared to a CRT.

Also, I don't think smartphones and laptops with CRTs would be that handy. Not to mention how a 50" CRT TV would look on my wall.

>>62368087
IPS has worse black levels than TN my senpai.

>>62368070
>>62368087
This.
/thread

>>62368106
Enjoy your cancer faggot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Health_concerns

>>62368205
>The amount of radiation escaping the front of the monitor is widely considered not to be harmful
Do you even read your sources?

We need to bring back CRT. Imagine modern CRT. Degauss button. Somebody do a Kickstarter or found a company for that I beg.

>>62368220
No thanks. They are ugly as fuck and take up too much room, Not to even mention they are not as energy efficient as LCD or LED's

>>62367976
the cia niggers spying on eveyone

>>62368310
BOTNET CONFIRMED

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#Security_concerns

>>62368106
>IPS has worse black levels than TN my senpai.
Generally IPS is better, there's nothing wrong with TN, but both are better than CRTs nowadays. CRTs where far from perfect, don't let your nostalgia fool you.

>>62368219
I'm not >>62368205

>>62368220
CRTs are still widely available, you can get nice professional VGA monitors for 5€ these days. There's no need to make them into some hipster meme with modern reproductions.

>>62368323
LCD is generally better but it really fails in the deep blacks and response time departments.

>>62368340
Hence modern IPS panels. In terms of resolution and refresh rate, they are better than CRTs.
CRTs didn't have perfect blacks, modern OLED displays for example do.

Of course, you can't do 600x400 at 400 Hz with modern panels, but why would you? But 2560x1440 at 140 Hz on the other hand is no problem, at it will usually look far nicer for detailed content.

>>62368383
IPS has worse blacks and response times than cheapo TN panels m8, the only thing it does better is muh colors and viewing angles for normie designers.

>>62368087
>>62368323
I'm getting mixed signals here
So are you a crt fanboy or a lcd fanboy?

>>62368220
The sheer insanity of the CRT. It's just a totally overtuned oscilloscope. After having worked on some basic experiments with a Braun tube I was extremely leery of the technology that amounted to extremely precisely aiming a ray of electrons at different areas on the front end of the tube. Using that for imaging is just all kinds of wonky.

>>62368401
I'm not comparing IPS to TN, just to CRTs. Modern IPS has worse response times than TN, but both are still better than CRTs. IPS has better colors and contrast ratio, also viewing angles, TN really is superior is response times only.

>>62368220
And how are you going to drive them ? Most modern card don't have RAMDACs anymore, and if you're relying on $5 hdmi-to-vga adapters to drive a CRT, you're missing the point. Most of them will cap out at 1200p@60Hz.

>>62367941
The same reason we let the music industry go backwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-bgiiTxhzM

>>62368466
With my old consoles and computers, duh.
You do realize CRTs with DVI-D and HDMI existed that would let you drive them as high of resolutions and refresh rates as VGA did? Those cheap DACs just are that, cheap, DACs themselves aren't a limitation.

>>62367941
Because normies don't use them in dark basements so black levels don't matter that much to them.

Fucking normies amiright?

>>62368454
IPS has worse blacks than TN thanks to IPS glow and both are worse than CRT, CRT has the best response time too (literally 0ms).

VA is the only LCD type that has a decent contrast ratio and even then it's several times worse than CRT.

>>62368322
I've accepted the fact that everything done will be recorded and be seen by some nigger on the internet, there's not a wholenlot you can do abourlt it, but some people are fighting against it

>>62368501
I've never seen a CRT with digital inputs that would go above 1080i@60Hz

>>62368536
>CRT has the best response time too (literally 0ms).

If that were true it would flicker like a motherfucker would it not?

>>62368087
>>62368070
And its a trinitron, no less. Of course the cheapo dell is going to look like shit in comparison

>>62367941
we traded quality for convenience of size, same as cell phones with call quality

>>62368591
You can see them flicker until you drive them up to about 85Hz. Cheap ones anyway.

>>62368591
it does

1:1 aspect ratio 5k OLED when?

Muh multi mounted squares breh.

>>62368640
OLED is a meme, it will never become mainstream.

>>62368646
Samsung just invested billions in it and Google just bought LG OLED tech.

Now sure how it's a meme when it can save power with individual pixels by design.

>>62368679
It's planned obsolescence: the technology.
Of course kike phone companies like Samsung and Google are investing in it, it basically ensures that the device becomes unusable in a few years.

>>62367976
Uh, you don't get to bring good contrast ratios

>>62368722
>planned obsolescence
I don't think you know what that meme means. When 95% of all consumers chuck the phone at the latest after five years, then making it so that the screen lasts for five is nothing but efficiency. Given that in those five years, as rapidly as this tech field is moving, there's likely going to be much more efficient screens invented that can last longer in the next generation. You'd make a terrible engineer.

>>62368070
But 2004 is after CRT anon.

File: RGB_pixels_on_a_CRT_monitor.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

- CRTs have superior color, but crappy sharpness and a fisheye-distorted image.
- LCD has sharp pixels and a perfectly flat image, but poor viewing angles and refresh rates.

Pick your poison...

File: YdUAvPV.jpg (73KB, 1024x609px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x609px

>>62367941
I'd totally get a 1080i tube TV for they're expensive as fuck even today

File: Trinitron-bars.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>62368832
>triad shadow mask

>>62368087
>*bleeds light*

>>62368087
>he doesn't want a CRT smartphone
How about SED then?

>>62368946
That looks like fucking garbage
I guess it's just like the old days amirite

Just because of the high sound I would never get a CRT again.
I value my ears, and I have Sennheiser HD595, so open back Headphones. The sound would kill me

>>62368551
>I have given up

Good goy. Here's your treat.

File: i wonder.png (828KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 2000x1000px

>>62367941
gee

I like older aspect ratios.

>>62369604
That Sony must've cost close to $10k in today's dollars.

>>62369604
>rare monitor that's slowly dying off and is an ass-pain to ship
vs
>the lcd jew

>>62369653
that price includes free local pickup only actually

>>62369705
>can't even get it shipped to you

CRT fags are the worse, even more so than the autists who swear by mechanical keyboards

>>62369604
DELET

File: 1504076438401.png (425KB, 486x495px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 486x495px

>le comparison of early cheap tft to one of the most high end crts money could buy

File: screen.jpg (151KB, 1024x414px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x414px

>>62369369

Trinitrons are as good as it gets with CRT, but even they're nowhere near the uniformity and sharpness of LCDs.

>>62368536
>both are worse than CRT.
Not completely true. In terms of black levels CRTs only perform better than LCDs in low light environments. In a lit room a CRT's black will typically be lighter than an LCD's.

File: 1302457174677.jpg (203KB, 802x854px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 802x854px

>>62367976

[spoiler]eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee[/spoiler]

>>62367941
Environment.

>>62372749
CRT monitors last longer and can be repaired

>>62370916
What is this picture for? Is it an lcd or the other one? Both?

>>62367941
>comparing CRT to a CCFL LCD.

>>62373014
never stopped people throwing them away.

File: 00107what.png (415KB, 700x621px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 700x621px

>Worse contrast in most real world settings
>Worse colors than modern displays
>High end CRTs could only do 120hz at 1024x768 or so because of the monitor's horizontal scan rate
>Awful brightness
>Reflects light
>Inherently blurry
>Low resolutions
>Analog signal
>All CRT monitors are dying a slow death

You have to be mentally retarded to think CRTs are superior. They aren't even good at black levels because the phosphors reflect ambient light.

>>62368591
Pixel response time is a measure of how fast a pixel can change color. Ideally it's a measure of how long a pixel takes to go from fully black to fully white and back. Most companies measure "grey to grey" though.

The fact you see flicker on a CRT is proof that it has a fast response time. You're seeing the top of the frame go dark as the beam scans the lower parts. Our visual memory is long enough that we still see it as a single image however.

CRT response times are measured in nanoseconds. It's one of the few things they're objectively good at. It doesn't really matter much with things like backlight strobing though.

Literally the only thing CRT has over IPS LCD and soon OLED is non-fixed resolution. They're great for playing retro games and poorfags who can't afford a graphics card that runs all their games well at native resolution.

CRT were never good. Some of the manufacturers started smear campaigns to make LCD technology look worse in attempt to sell surplus CRT stock.

>>62374806
You need to be 18 or older to post on 4chan.

Somewhere there is a parallel universe where flat screens were shrugged off as a meme and all that money went to CRT development, I want to go there.

Well whatever the qualities of CRT may be, the day I switched from a Viewsonic 17" CRT to a 30" Apple Cinema Display was monumental. I honestly can't start to being descibing the difference.

File: Cosmos.jpg (109KB, 854x687px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 854x687px

>>62375272
tfw i imagine watching 8k vhs tapes from the video store on my 8k crt

>>62375329
>8k crt
If I remember correctly there was a physical limitation to how large the tube could be before outside air pressure caused it to implode.

You can't talk to CRT shits because they are mentally stuck in 2004. They're like creationists and ignore anything new. So when you say IPS, they honestly think you're just making that up because they think updating hardware is for "normies". This is the same as the SSD meme as people cite shit that wasn't relevant since 2006.

>>62375329
maximum comfy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4lDU-QLUY

>>62375272
>the other universe has x-ray tv's and gamma glasses

feels bad man

>>62372480
lcds still make noise depending on your backlight's intensity
you probably won't notice because you have a computer with a fan in the same room as the display

File: checkmate.jpg (37KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x500px

>>62375345
Can IPS do non-native resolutions without looking like a blurry mess?

>>62373905
Jaggy pls

File: IBM_T221.jpg (1MB, 2000x1631px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1631px

>>62375339
it is probably physically possible to produce an 8k crt there would be some problems but the whole large tube thing is a myth.


on a side note anyone remember these?

Ever tried to pick up a crt tv? one time I was carrying one to replace it with a flat screen and the crt was heavy as shit, so much so that the handles broke off and it went crashing to the floor where the glass shattered, making a big mess. Funny thing is, the handles were still in my hands.

>>62376202
Old stuff like that tends to break in unexpected ways.

>>62367976
This.

OLED > CRT
Prove me wrong.

File: scanlines.jpg (2MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2688x1520px

>>62376344
OLED can't do this. 640x480 and it still looks crisp as fuck.

File: IMG_20170911_224351.jpg (3MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x3120px

>>62376416
Looks like shit tbqfh senpai

>>62376461
If DPI is high enough low-res content will look decent, but until high DPI screens become the norm scaled images will still look like shit.

>>62376479
Your colors will always be uggo tier garbage though

>>62376485
On OLED?

>>62376500
No on whatever shit CRT you were using.

I don't buy the retarded "hurrdurr you need bigger pixels" argument. When pixels are indistinguishable, content is as good as it will ever be.

Thin, energy efficient, 99% of people don't give a shit.

>>62376509
>When pixels are indistinguishable, content is as good as it will ever be.
Sure, when you're watching TV pixel size makes no difference. But when you're looking at a computer monitor and it's a shittastic 20+ inches 1080p display you're going to notice the blurriness of scaled content.

>>62376509
t. Never seen an 8k panel vs HD panel in person

>>62376532
No? I'm not fucking poor lmao, I have a 4K VA panel as my monitor.

>>62375447
Some fags here own one

>all those fucking retards IT
Post a tnshit display that looks as good as the CRT on the left, then.

>tfw no HDMI input CRT
why even live, shit looks far better than any other display type.
I love my braun tubes.

>>62367941
>people still falling for the crt meme

>>62368404
Lsd

>>62377542
why TN and not IPS?

>>62367941
>what is OLED

>>62368087
>old clunky outdated tech like IPS

At least use VA, but LCDs need to die already in favor of OLED.

Back in 2005 I had a dead brand 17" 1024p 4/3 monitor, a classmate had a portable Toshiba PC and compared to mine, the Toshiba quality was worse than awful and mine wasn't even a top-rated or expensive brand. Now, people might say "b-buy that was over 10 years ago!! now LCD is great and cheap..." yeah there's no doubt about that, but why did we stop improving CRT superior quality and continue only in direction of shitty crystal displays? it's simply about profit, the quality is lower and so are the production costs, nobody who supported LCD development really cared about technological advancement, because CRT was objectively superior and if people weren't greedy like jews, by now we could be using flat CRT displays with who knows what amazing video quality.

>>62378306
Overpriced shit that dies too fast.
I prefer VA.

File: 1503980444293.png (34KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 501x585px

>>62367941

>>62370916

Both are of the same LCD at different zoom level. It's meant to be compared to >>62369369 , as i was replying to them.

>>62378943
VA panels have bad gamma shift, and OLED has burn in that still occurs even with pixel shifting. you can make criticisms about edge glow on IPS displays but they don't have lifespan-shortening flaws.

File: bastion old guy.jpg (5KB, 200x224px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x224px

>>62376202
>Ever tried to pick up a crt tv?
You fucking babies. Back in MUH DAYZ, I packed my PC tower and my CRT screen into a LAUNDRY BASKET and marched all the way into the next neighborhood where my buddy was holding off a LAN-Party, and then we played CS 1.6 together and LIKED it! I had fucking cuts on my hands from the plastic handles digging into my palms and I got a 2:1 k/d anyway!

>>62379092
>>>/pol/

File: thinkingblobs.png (132KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1000x1000px

what if you combined CRT and LCD technology so the lcd films were used for color information and the crt was used the light the pixels in place of a backlight. you wouldn't really need the same amount of pixels for the CRT portion so that wouldn't be a concern

>>62368646
It literally will become mainstream as soon as the burn in issue is fixed, it has all the advantages of IPS and TN without any drawbacks besides that

>>62367941

elderfag here.

Sharp image with good focus was $$$$ before LCD's came.

When I got my first LCD I was blown away by sharpness of the image and I didn't even have some low end crt but high end Eizo.

So unless you had money for trinitron/diamondtron your CRT experience was horrible blur and LCD really changed things for better.

>>62368536
>CRT has the best response time too (literally 0ms).
If you believe that you're a tech illiterate

>>62368536
>CRT has the best response time too (literally 0ms).
TN and IPS panels have sub-1ms response time too nowadays, stop buying cheap panels.
No, CRTs don't have 0ms response time, that's not how refresh rate works either.

You done your detailed research yourself with a slow motion camera out of boredom?
I know I have.

>>62367941

RHoS killed CRTs. They used too much heavy metals in their construction.

CRTs have superior gamma and input lag than any LCD on the market. OLEDs have identical gamma but their life expectancy still sucks and still suffer from inferior input lag.

SED/MEDs could have been the holy grail (combining the best of both worlds) but the tech is trapped in patent troll hell.

LCDs are simply just good enough for the masses and cheap to make. That's why they dominate the industry.

>>62368466
my gtx 970 can run a crt monitor is this not common

>>62380508
>superior gamma
>identical gamma
>anything gamma
what? are you referring to some response curve?

File: 1010533900_1456167131.jpg (25KB, 312x261px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 312x261px

>>62380891
AMD stopped including analog outputs since R9 290/X, nVidia since Pascal I think.
So yeah, with modern cards this is not common

OLED monitors when

>>"Why did we let the monitor industry go backwards?"

> Good CRTs exist
> New technology arises, bad flat panels
> some people buy into it just to show off because they look so different
> some people buy them because they need it in a small area (like hospitals/etc.)
> some people buy them because they need it mounted on a wall/etc.
> some people buy them because they were packed in with a bundle PC

wow it's almost like the PC market of the early 2000s wasn't driven by gamers at all

>>62381609
this duded gets it

my whole entertainment setup is CRT and I've vowed to keep it that way until OLED is sub $10,000

>>62367941
>my crt looks better through a camera than my cheap tn monitor

File: B7f2_OECEAAyijj.jpg (27KB, 545x362px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 545x362px

>>62381733
>the PC market of the early 2000s wasn't driven by gamers at all
it definitely wasn't as prominent
I miss 2000s, when there were no gay RGB LEDs and edgy gamer bullshit everywhere

>>62367976
LOL, no. The CIA loved CRTs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking#CRTs

>>62379569
>>62378943
I'm a big fan of VA monitors. The gamma shift issues are fairly mild, as long as you go with higher-end panels, even those from the last decade. I'd suggest buying a used pro-tier VA from 3+ years ago for cheap if you want to give it a try.

>>62382193
>pro-tier VA from 3+ years ago
any recommendations? My IPS is starting to shit itself and I was looking to get something with actual contrast.

>>62367941
>buys tn panel
>complains about shit image

also because its heavy as fuck,
it breaks sawdust desks,
it consumes a ton of power,
it breaks if you dont have a screen saver or look at the same stuff alot(task bar, windows exporer, browser).
it clutters up the desk
tons of more reasons such as it not being 1940 anymroe

File: nipkow.jpg (11KB, 250x290px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x290px

superior technology reporting in

File: thinking kot.jpg (62KB, 661x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 661x400px

What was the peak of CRT monitors?

>>62376461
Of course a touhoufag wouldn't be able to appreciate anything good

I bet you are a linux neet trap who goes on last.fm for lofi hiphop sample music and wears knee socks and posts anime on twitter while retweeting japanese shit you can't read with a linux flat anime desktop and programming tutorials up in your vim that you didn't write

>>62367941
all i remember is my crt was unusable for anything not on white background. Playing sh3 was nice though, only seen slight shades of what was in the flashlight cone.

File: 1438831302226.jpg (89KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x450px

>>62385973
lmao your tears are delicious

>>62367941
The DELL should be a 16:9 to demonstrate the ultimate cuckery we've gone through.