Whats the appeal?

you answered your own question

better colors, blacks and sharpness

downsides:
fucking heavy
power hungry
hot
huge
anything better than 1280x1024 gets expensive unless youre lucky

>>62448794
??

File: 636108652280583995766440092_Pepe Confused.png (22KB, 612x491px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 612x491px

>>62448929
>better sharpness

>>62448949
the pixel structure in a quality crt generally gives better sharpness and clarity compared to lcd screens, though higher res screens entirely negate that fact

a standard 1024 crt vs and equal tft or something, the crt will always look sharper

>>62448781
>support for various resolutions without scaling, particularly useful for legacy software/games that require low resolutions that look terrible scaled up on an LCD

>super smooth motion with almost no latency

>very dark black level good for viewing dark content in a dark room

The real question is how LCDs caught on.
I remember in the 1990s when LCDs were just what you had to use with a laptop because nothing else was portable. But for desktops, everyone thought something else would catch on (plasma, rear-projection or whatever it's called, etc.)

The best thing about CRTs for me is the arbitrary resolution and how you can just crank it up well beyond what the manufacturer recommends.

>>62448929
I've seen people give away 2048x1536 CRTs in my country, but they never wanted to ship even if i paid extra for their trouble.
I don't want to drive 16 hours to get one.

>>62449143
>The real question is how LCDs caught on.
They are small, that's it.

CRTs are garbage compared to modern VA/IPS panels. I still use a plasma tv but CRTs are completely depreciated.

>>62449434
>I still use a plasma tv but CRTs are completely depreciated.
That's why they're so cheap :^)
Plus there's nostalgia value in them.

>>62449143

Yeah, but you can't "actually" crank it up, there's still the shadowmask/aperture grille's native resolution and if you go beyond that,it gets blurry and the max refresh rate goes down.

File: 255px-Hugo_tunnus[1].jpg (8KB, 255x235px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 255x235px

>>62448781

Its comfy and reminds me of better times.

File: trinitron.jpg (661KB, 2214x1245px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 2214x1245px

>>62449988

Basically.

>>62448781
>PROS
- Almost infinite contrast in a darkened room
- Better scaling on Aperture grille tubes due to only columns being fixed pitch (shadow mask is just as bad as any other fixed pitch/array design like LCD)
- Perfect motion due to image retention between scans

CONS
- Noise
- Size
- Weight
- Headache issues on refresh rates less than 85hz
- Convergence
- Moire
- Pincushion
- Needing constant adjustment throught the year as earth magnetic fields change

>>62448929
>better colors, blacks and sharpness
i like crts and still use them for nostalgia value but none of this is true. maybe in the early days of lcds it was but not anymore.

>>62449143
Because of EU crazy laws.

CRT's produce X-rays, those X-rays are damaging to Humans (all Mammals actually)
To deal with this, we made CRT's out of lead glass to absorb the X-rays (well most of them, enough so that wasn't a problem) but lead glass isn't clear, light going through it glows orange.
To make the hop over to color, we needed something other than lead glass - enter Barium glass.
Barium Glass is extremely expensive but allowed for fullcolor throughput, so to offset the cost we only used Barium glass for the front, the rest of the 'bulb' was still lead glass.

EU decided it would be a good idea to ban lead under RoHS.
This would have made Cathode Ray Tubes ~10-15x more expensive as they would need to be entirely made of Barium Glass.

The European Union is the reason we can't have nice things, always.

>>62448929
Better blacks is a myth. CRT screens glow.

File: 1368778828396.jpg (196KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1024x768px

>>62450348
not unless the gun is hitting the phosphors.
If you're sending a black signal, it's not shooting.

>>62449988
Qué haces jugando Hugo la concha de tu madre?

>>62448781

>>62450144
>Needing constant adjustment throught the year as earth magnetic fields change

what

>>62448781
warmth of colours, high contrasts, freedom of resolutions, smooth motion and overall speed
plus i know how to repair it

>>62448781
Unless you're blind, they help you see what you're doing. They also make webbrowsing significantly easier.

Though, I had a friend who was blind and he did everything with text to speech, so it's not like you need monitors.

File: 1413022463293.jpg (76KB, 653x490px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 653x490px

>there will never be SED monitors to buy

Dude, you see how A E S T H E T I C that thing is?

>>62450901
Earth's magnetic field changes throughout the year.
That's why you can even calibrate PC CRTs, because it's impossible to ship them precalibrated as the magnetic fields change and PC CRTs can't hide a slight pincushion or trapezoid like TV's could by just overscanning everything.

>>62450144
but calibration is fun

Lower input lag and response times, better contrast, scalable resolutions. Of course they're heavy as shit and you need to run them at a high refresh rate so you don't hurt your eyes.

>>62450221
But anon I read that lead is used in the display glass to enhance optical quality

>>62451279
It's a novelty now, maybe, fondling knobs and all that.
It was a pain back then for the most part, I just wanted my shit to stay calibrated.

I'd wonder if the tradeoffs were worth it, but it's not like the EU left us a choice anyway.

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

121KB, 909x694px

>>62451291
>>62451056
>>62451019
>>62450144
>>62448929
>Contrast
You kids and hipsters need to stop.

>>62451331
Compared to other x-ray blocking heavy metals that were cheaper, yes.
Compare Orange dumb-terminals to Green and later White and Blue models.
The orange lead-glass was always clearer.

>>62451395
>LCD higher contrast than Plasma
The lies coming off that sheet are crazy.

Moreover, you can see >>62450464 for yourself.

>>62451456
Is not a good comparison. Dimmed room and unknown monitor settings.

That test is as factual as it gets.

>>62450464
That LCD monitor looks like it's from 2000's.

File: eyhfj.png (15KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 1000x1000px

>>62451395
contrast between colours, you idiot. of course that checkerboard will blend into grey but that's how it should actually be. i guess that you've never read a mange before

>>62451504
So is the CRT.
LCD's haven't gotten any better.
We're still at 1000:1 tops for IPS and 5000:1 for VA.This hasn't changed in over a decade.

>>62451525
You kids make me laugh at least. It's an ansi test.

File: 1469917724912.png (88KB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 5000x5000px

>>62451551
>LCD's haven't gotten any better.

>>62451560
>muh ANSI test
get a decent CRT, not some shitty monitor, and see for yourself, fucktard

>>62451631
Sorry 3rd worlder. In the civilized world ANSI dictates how most tests are done.

>>62450221
So, if demand resurfaces in the form of an enthusiast market, we could make them fully in barium glass?

>>62451603
Speed, yes.
Contrast, No.
We're still at 1000:1.

Maybe Panasonic '''new''' idea of bonding two IPS panels on top of each other and using a brighter backlgiht will finally catch on and we'll have something better.
Or LG's W-OLED displays will finally come to PC.

Until then, it's ancient IPS and shit contrast until the end of time.

>>62451644
>use some shitty TV spinoff for comparison
wew..so much for ANSI

>>62451660
Feel free to back any of that shit you're spewing a s fact up, kiddo.

File: Radei.jpg (588KB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 5000x5000px

>>62451668
>wew
Sorry gen z. And those monitors in that test are anything but shit. Not that you'd know.

>>62451696
thank god that i can easily find specifications for the said monitor and tell you that you're a fucking moron right off the bat

>>62451723
Feel free to post shit to back up your claims.

>>62451677
No problems mate.
http://www.panelook.com/modelsearch.php?op=advancedsearch&order=panel_id&panel_type_main=TFT&transmissive_cr=21000
Only 2 panels listed under TFT LCD that are above 5000:1 contrast.
Both are OLED backlit panels.

>>62451752
>spoonfeed me
i already used google. now it's your turn

>>62451677
>>62451660
>>62451603
Your average CRT shit says this because they are honestly mentally stuck in 2004. You cannot argue with them because they go the creationist route of "it's not already in my room so it doesn't exist". This works out if you can find this hipster shit and sell it online for huge markup. Shipping included of course, the post man doesn't want to carry that shit

>>62451819
>no older technology is superior to current consumerist crap

>>62451766
>http://www.panelook.com
K, kiddo. You don't know what you're talking about and are only looking at numbers that you don't understand.

Multiple Sonys are well above your claims. And these tests are ansi.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x930e
>>62451779
Oh common core kid. Doesn't understand the difference between being spoonfed and backing your own shit claims up.
>>62451819
I almost it enjoy it from time to time.

>>62451819
Hey if you'd like to start posting these imaginary IPS panels with higher than 1000:1 or VA with higher than 5000:1, please do so at any time.

>>62451852
>TV
Again, we're talking about monitors.
Right now I can buy an OLED panel television which will eat any PC monitor (bar Dell's OLED monitor) for breakfast.
Even before OLED Sony has FALD backlights on TV, but again - never once seen on a PC monitor.

>>62451852
there's backing up and there's spoonfeeding a lazy shit who can't spend 10 seconds googling stuff
also:
>proves himself wrong
kudos to you

>>62451819
I just hate how CRT fanboys compare high end, professional monitors that were worth thousands new to cheap LCD panels from 2004. People act like you can just walk outside and find a perfect condition 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 CRT, I can't find any higher than 1280x1024 where I live, all the hipsters have gobbled them up already.

>>62451849
You know you're really fucking up bad when all of the pictures comparing these are of a 4:3 LCD monitor. So it's from 2004. We all know you're just trying to be a unique snowflake by "ironically" using a piece of shit but you can't even get the aspect ratio right because even your trinitron would lose hard.

>>62451923
>Cheap LCD panels
It's a Dell 19" Ultrasharp, they cost more than the Sony CRT sitting next to it...

>>62451898
The bast displays for LCD are TVs these days. I never said or implied OLED was inferior or brought it up at all. So I don't know what you're trying to tell me about OLED now. Some misdirect I guess.

The LCD monitors on the market have their own strength though. Certainly aren't bad. Especially the gaming ones.
>>62451906
Tell me more gen z. Because that's all you're going to do.

>>62451944
>The bast displays for LCD are TVs these days.
back to >>>/vr/ to discuss your TVs and consoles for them.
This is /g/ we're not talking about TVs.
There is only a single monitor that is better than a CRT and it's OLED.
No LCD monitor has better contrast than a Trinitron, period.

>>62451929
breaking news: not everyone is a blind fuck like you. amazing, i know
>So it's from 2004
hey, i'm not the moron who uses such tests. feel free to compare a 2017 monitor with an old, good tier CRT. nothing much really changed due to technology limitations. but hey! it's flat, amirite?!
>>62451944
keep digging that grave, bruh

>>62451982
I backed my claims up, champ. You haven't.
>>62451994
K

>>62452019
>I proved myself wrong, champ. You haven't.
FTFY

>>62452019
I did, there isn't a panel for PC monitors that is higher than 5000:1 contrast, any that are above 1300:1 are invariably VA panels.
IPS is 1000:1 typically and some of the very best binned LG A+ panels manage 1200:1
This hasn't changed since 2004 (well I suppose LG didn't have 1200:1 IPS then, it was still at 1000:1)

>>62452040
Common core is a strange thing. From what I gather if you yell loud enough and repeat yourself then you won the argument. Doesn't matter if the other guy supported his argument or not.

>>62452067
projecting much?

>>62452060
Try reading my post. I disproved that. Disprove my evidence.

>>62452067
why bother when the other guy can prove himself wrong entirely on his own?

>>62452076
You disproved that LG only sells at most 1200:1 IPS panels?
You might want to tell LG then...

>>62452071
It's an observation. Not projection. Do you understand that? I was long out of school before that shit.
>>62452086
There you go.

>>62452095
no. there YOU go
>>>/vr/

>>62452092
Do you ignore the evidence I post on purpose or are you retarded? Just wondering, I have to second guess myself sometimes if it's mental illness or common core logic.

To test do this in your next post. Either directly reference the evidence I posted or continue your dribble that is out of context.
>>62452105
It's funny how you're doing what I said you do.

>>62452126
just getting on your level of "conversation"

>>62452126
Which evidence would that be?
You've only posted marketing fluff so far...

>>62452166
don't bother. i should've known better than replying to a namefag

>>62452135
>>62452166
And the latter was chosen. Well I'm out for now. You kids have fun. Maybe I'll check back later to see if anyone has posted something interesting but I doubt it since that rarely happens with this old tech subject. But everything is well documented and tested anyway.

>>62452220
by kid, we won't particularly miss you.

>>62452220
>calling us kids once again
well...
>>62452067
also
>taking one single test as an absolute, universal fact
wew

i use CRT mainly because there are the only good 4:3 monitors

File: deeper-pixels.png (625KB, 1259x708px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1259x708px

>>62448781
comfy aesthetic from before normies took over computing

>>62448929
is better sharpness a lot like deeper pixels

>>62448781
Comfy. It's a great way to play retro vidya on a CRT setup.

>get 1280x1024 PC monitor in pretty good shape off of Craigslist
>defaults to 1024x768@85Hz
>turn to max resolution
>get eye cancer
Wait was 60Hz always this bad on CRT's? I don't remember having this issue with NTSC TV's back in the day.

>>62452733
>CRT
>60Hz
>ever
Yeah, it was always cancer. 75Hz is tolerable for a little while, but 85Hz/90Hz is where it's at.

Can you do this with your LCD? No? Fuck you. You're gay.

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=0xRwuLEJMSE&start=60sec

File: 1359714275898.png (5KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 645x773px

>meanwhile i can get dozens of top tier CRTs for half-free or free along with other top tier electronic stuff
enjoy your 1st world
>>62452785
magnets are the best. they do such trippy things with the screen

>>62449143
Lead is bad for mammals

>>62448929
Can't you set pretty much any resolution on a cry? I remember using really high resolutions on my crt but I don't think it was anything special

>>62452733
A lot of TVs, especially older ones, use longer-persistence phosphors, which means less severe flicker because the frames don't fade as fast.

Also, you don't see flickering with moving images, and moving images are mostly what you see on a TV, as opposed to a computer monitor where you'll be looking at a lot of static images.

>>62451395
>>62451456
>>62451471
>>62451525
>>62451560
>>62451631
>>62451644

CRT monitors actually DO have shit contrast ratios when measured with a checkerboard test. The thing is, this doesn't really matter in actual usage, because the human eyes/brain will still see the black as pure black when you're also viewing bright white right next to it.

Where CRTs really shine is when you're viewing mostly dark content, as you would often have in a dark-themed game or show/movie. An immersive dark game or movie scene usually doesn't also consist of bright parts at the same time, and good CRTs have extremely dark black levels when they're displaying mostly dark content.

Basically, the contrast ratio is fantastic when you need it in actual usage, but it looks bad when you do in ANSI checkerboard test that has no basis in real-world usage.

>>62452900
Only what the tube and the controller are capable of.
But also, there is a fixed pitch on the tube itself.
For Shadow Mask crts (cheap pc monitors) this is basically the equivilent of what LCD/Plasma have - it's a fixed array, but you can scan differently along it, so it's not as bad.
Aperture grille is only fixed pitch horizontally (it has a fixed number of columns, but lines is effectively only limited by the controller and the ability of the tube to scan that quickly)

>>62453050
>Basically, the contrast ratio is fantastic when you need it in actual usage, but it looks bad when you do in ANSI checkerboard test that has no basis in real-world usage.
Text visibility. Also games.

>>62453094
oh look. the attention whore is back

>>62453094
I've used my fair share of CRTs and never felt that black text didn't look black enough on a white background.

A light meter can measure a tiny point of white and a tiny point of black on a display and give you a contrast ratio, but human eyes don't work that way. When you're viewing an all-black screen, your pupils dilate and you'll be able to see it glowing if the black isn't really black. When you're viewing a combination of black and white, your pupils will not dilate nearly as much, so black will still look black, especially compared to the white right next to it.

The same thing applies to games or anything else. If a scene has a combination of darkness and lightness, your eyes won't be able to see the dark parts very well regardless of the display because your pupils won't dilate enough to see shadow details. This is why the ANSI checkerboard contrast measurement isn't very important in real-world usage.

When you're viewing an all-dark game or show/movie scene, your pupils will dilate more and you'll be able to see shadow details clearly, and if your display has black level glow, you'll see that too. But in these scenarios, a good CRT will not be glowing because it will have a very deep black level when there's no white/bright spots on the screen.

>>62453050
>and good CRTs have extremely dark black levels when they're displaying mostly dark content.
if you're viewing it in a dark room.

>>62453224
Indeed, that only applies to dark room viewing. In a lit room, you'll struggle to see dark content at all because of the reflectivity washing everything out.

There should be no argument about their fantastic performance for dark content in a dark room, however.

>>62453220
stop reasoning with a moron who was to lazy to read your entire first post

>>62453220
There's a reason larger text font were common then. It's painful reading on a 15" CRT. Where as with LCD and OLED you can read small text easily on 5" or smaller screens (smart phones).

The smallest CRTs I'm aware of for commercial sale where in video cameras. And ya they are blurry as shit.

>>62453284
I think that reason is resolution, not contrast ratio.

Any readability issues I've had on CRTs has just been a matter of trying to use a resolution too high for the grille/mask.

Most people don't realize that even a lot of CRTs that can scan 2048x1536 don't really have enough stripes/dots to handle that kind of resolution. Most of the big CRT computer monitors look better at 1600x1200.

>>62453284
>It's painful reading on a 15" CRT
except it's not. never had any problems with these or smaller ones

>>62453321
Doesn't matter. Well I can say that up to 1080p PC Monitors.
>>62453355
K

>>62453387
you need an oculist not a better contrast monitor

>>62453407
K, 3rd wolder.

>>62453424
>this is actually the best tier of response i'll get from him
it's sad actually

>>62453471
It's only these kind of threads where you'll get some 3rd world degenerate saying a 15" monitor is not only good but great.

>>62453497
It's only these kind of threads where you'll get some namefagging illiterate shithead that is enough stupid to prove himself wrong and then go full damage control

>>62453321
This, it's much easier reading tiny text on an LCD or OLED than a CRT. It's too bad because the lack of motion blur makes reading moving text much easier than on a n LCD.

>>62453527
I backed up what I could. The 15" monitor is a subjective thing.

>>62453598
so you brought up a 201x OLED and compared it to 90's VDU

>>62453701
Do you know the proper name for the fallacy you've been using itt?

>>62453705
yeah. it's called "/vr/ guy"

After recording an online stopwatch with my phone's 120Hz camera on both my CRT and 1080p IPS, I couldn't really tell the difference between start and stop times looking at the video frame by frame. I'm guessing the difference in input lag is less than 8.33ms, although I would need more powerful hardware to measure it. The IPS did have worse ghosting but my CRT monitor still has some ghosting as well.

File: shitboxes.jpg (2MB, 3159x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3159x2448px

>>62448781
it has dual VGA inputs and effectively supports the varying resolutions and hardware requirements of the esoteric platforms that fill the void in my soul

>>62448781
There is no appeal. Anyone who shows them off is literally just a poor.

>>62454891
>shitboxes
>soft lighting
>IRIX or some shit
looks comfy, anon :3

>>62454913
>Not just liking computer stuff for its own sake
You are a small-souled bugman.