Why did we stop using CRT monitors?

>>105975501 (OP)
Zoomer thread

>>105975501 (OP)
cause oleds now exist

>>105975501 (OP)
>why
mostly $

most people lack the experience or eye-sight to know the advantages. there's a reason why most astronaut/fighter pilot training simulations used CRT projectors up until recently when they stopped making them.

>>105975501 (OP)
Because they were shit.

>>105975501 (OP)
>large and heavy
>high power consumption
>required maintenance which led to increased cost due to servicing
>difficult and impractical to mount on walls
>unable to go beyond 40 inches without tube collapse or being a rear projector that lost fidelity
>could actually kill you due to high voltage
>image sharpness even on more modern monitors was not ideal
Also you posted a TV, not a monitor.

>>105975501 (OP)
I have a PVM and I have no idea how to hook it up so I can use it as a PC monitor for streams etc. I mainly use to use it for watching old VHS tapes and retro gaming

>>105975501 (OP)
Yeah kid no one had money for sony trinitron and similar monitors back in the day.
You had shitty samsung, adi whatever with terrible focus and washed out colors.
Any lcd was huge step in image quality from that.

yeah good luck with this, bruv

>>105975700
This is not flush-to-wall.
This is tangential-to-wall at best.

>>105975501 (OP)
gave me horrible eye pain from the flicker. i still miss them tho i wish they could still be made

>>105975625
trinitrons were in many dell pc so tons of people had them

mostly because only 250 CRTs fit into a chineese container compared to almost 1000 LCDs

>>105975747
>gave me horrible eye pain from the flicker
This. You don't realize why there are PSAs at the start of games for breaks to prevent headaches or dizzyness until you play on a CRT. It's the same reason why office work today have guidelines about screen time, it all came from CRTs intially.

>>105975738
It doesn't matter since the CRT will still be a foot forward even if you managed to find a mount strong enough to hold it. and good luck with that shit for 65"+ TVs

>>105975501 (OP)
For some reason I can see the difference between that crt screen and the lcd screen on my lcd screen clear as day.

>>105975796
>that crt screen and the lcd screen
>clear as day
you're clearly blind as fuck since they're the same damn TV

>>105975501 (OP)
is the one in the bottom suppose to look better?

Average monitors these days have the same screen size as a crt TV in an average home in that era you zoomers don't understand how good you have it

>>105975501 (OP)
theyre (comparatively) huge
and energy-hungry

>>105976098
I mean there was time where people had to have "tv rooms" due to how bulky they were

>>105975760
idk never even seen dell crt.
only place I could actually look at trinitron are workstations at uni like sun.
super rich friend of mine had 15" sony trinition on sgi indy, another friends dad that was judge had mac with triniton screen.
they where super rare and expensive for common folk.

>>105975501 (OP)
CRTs have unlimited FPS. they phased out CRT's so they can sell the same technology for a much higher price.

>>105976144
>they phased out CRT's so they can sell the same technology for a much higher price.
You wish, it's not even the same technology.

>>105975700
Apparently rich people (Americans) had a special hole for TV over fireplace.

>>105976161
>over the fireplace
Where the fuck does all the embers or soot go? I am not surprised Americans came up with this idea lmao

>>105975586
they are large and heavy and dont scale up, but everything else mentioned is untrue, they are cheaper to make than lcds , less complicated , and dont need service very often maybe once every 5-10 years and they are actually sevicable unlike lcds, they can be pretty damn sharp too.


the real death of crts comes from shipping, by the time lcds rolled around domestic tube manufacture was basically non existent, all of the good tubes came from overseas, (sony, samsung, diamondtron ect) , the size and weight makes shipping expensive, even though lcds are harder to make and looked like ass in 2007, they win because you can ship 5 for every crt.

>>105976136
every school where I lived had computer labs full of dell crts, volume deal I assume, unfortunately when the time came to scrap them, they werent allowed to give them away or sell them so i was unable to snag qny. gooberment goons had some racket going with the recycler.

>>105976228
the real death came from consumers wanting thin, light LCDs that don't give them eye strain and eye cancer, they weren't even cheaper, people overpayed to get these giant cancer boxes off their desk once and for all and we are NEVER going back

the ONLY people who nostaligatroon over CRTs are zoomer retards who didn't experience the sheer joy and pleasure of replacing a CRT with an LCD

i hope the government passes a law requiring you to hand in old CRTs for e-waste recycling so we never have to have these retarded threads ever again

>>105976228
>they are cheaper to make than lcds
What?
>less complicated
Depends on your definition as this is analogue vs digital engineering
>dont need service very often maybe once every 5-10 years
Depends on model but yes it is not extensive
>actually sevicable unlike lcds
Being serviceble is not exactly a boon, ideally you don't need to service and in my experience I have never needed to fix an LCD. My PVM on the other hand...
>they can be pretty damn sharp too
Absolutely on some calibrated monitors, but with LCDs it is across the board

>>105975501 (OP)
This look so ass LMAO

>>105976278
lcds have a tooling cost, setting up factories is way more expensive than for crts. the cost of lcds has come down due to mass production, but it still probably wont ever be quite as cheap as crts, oled is a different story however.

crts require less precision manufacturing, and can be made with fairly crude methods, the really costly issue is the lead, which is required to make them safe, and easily doubles the weight, some really late crts use beryllium instead but much the same issue remains.

>>105976267
you clearly dont remember how shit early lcds were, they were really fucking bad, they only really became "equivalent" around ~2012, which is why plasmas took longer to die off.

>>105976397

>2025
>no new material substitute for lead

stagnant technology

>>105976411
yes I do remember, they were bad, and people still flocked to them in droves because of how fucking stupid CRTs are compared to them

>>105976495
No, lead stronk

Unless you are a gaming autist, CRTs have no benefit over LCDs

>>105976569
video games up to ps3

>>105976267
>>105976411
>>105976519
Nobody called them "LCD TVs" back in the day. They were called flatscreens. Because that was their whole selling point.
A FLAT TV. Nobody really cared about image quality.

>>105976624
maybe in turd world shitholes where flatscreen CRTs weren't a thing

>>105976604
lol no, modern games as well.

>>105976643
Funny how all these people who will optimise every aspect of their PC for competitive games like CS2 don't bother with CRTs. No pros, who's livelihoods rely on winning, use CRTs either.

You lost. CRTs are dead and buried shit that is NEVER coming back.

CRTs hurt my eyes and gave me static electricity

>>105976228

>they are cheaper to make than lcds , less complicated , and dont need service very often maybe once every 5-10 years and they are actually sevicable unlike lcds, they can be pretty damn sharp too.

You are full of shit, m8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jJm65mQWR0

>>105976731
you lack experience and i'm not sure why you're gloating.
crt is the best solution, if i were a pro gamer i would play on them. i remember switching playing quake 3 from crt to lcd and lcd was truly a joke. years later a 180hz lcd was better but crt is still unmatched.

>>105975501 (OP)
Because it was more cost effective for economy of scale to mass produce compact and lightweight LCDs instead, even if they were dogshit in several respects compared to tubes. Capitalism, in other words.

>>105975586
Now imagine what 20 years of technological advancements could do for them.
>>105975517
OLEDs only came in later and they still aren't the same thing.

>>105976762
i was global in csgo and hit 22k in cs2 last season just casually playing solo q no voice, i was high enough elo in quake live after 24 hours of play time to qualify for local lans, i used to pug with comp tf2 players for fun

no cs2 pro is using CRT, everyone uses zowie TN panels, CRT is not unmatched, it has been completely fucking depreciated in every department

>>105975501 (OP)
lcd's are cheaper to produce, store, and ship

>>105976779
you're wrong, and that's just fine.

>>105976193
>Where the fuck does all the embers or soot go?
the ... chimney?

>>105976778
>Now imagine what 20 years of technological advancements could do for them.
We were seeing diminishing returns by the 2000s for 128 years old technology. I like CRTs, I want more support for CRTs, maybe even new CRTs, but there is a reasom for them being phased out

>>105975501 (OP)
high power draw, expensive to make, heavy, gets hot, burn in, flickering, need for occasional calibration, the power of apollo, saving 15% or more by switching to geico, etc

>>105975747
even when i was a teen it become quite hard to see the flicker past 100Hz, which was not hard for a crt to do

>>105976784
https://prosettings.net/lists/cs2/

there you go, coping nostalgiatroon retard

>>105976267
>LCDs that don't give them eye strain and eye cancer
Are you fucking kidding me? My 2005 Hyundai running past 75HZ feels much less straining than monitors older than my 24MP55 in several respects. Flicker-free was a big point of discussion at the time.
>the ONLY people who nostaligatroon over CRTs are zoomer retards who didn't experience the sheer joy and pleasure of replacing a CRT with an LCD
You're a fucking cockglobbering retard who never experienced the joy of swapping out your smeary ass backlit LCD with a CRT for specific things that take advantage of it. Because I did after nearly 20 years. LCDs are fine for some basic office tasks due to pixel sharpness and real estate but fuck using them for other things sometimes. It might work, but it is a joyless sight.

>>105976786
Wheres the chimney if the TV is a recessed alcove above the fireplace? You know, where the chimney normally is?

>>105976811
if you were right they would still make CRTs for all these supposed scenarios where CRT's are better

>>105976803
Pretty sure CRTs should only need to run past 60Hz to avoid flickering if all things are equal and up to spec.

>>105976346
i'm not sure what op was going for there. in any case, it's really hard to make a photo of a crt that looks anything like real life. important things like contrast and motion just can't be conveyed with a photo at all

I just LOVE the inky blacks of CRT

>>105976805
i played quake 3 at a very high level, why would i care about your counterstrike?

even the best lcd screens don't have the motion clarity of crt's. at 500hz it's still twice as much as crt.

>nostalgiatroon retard
grow up

https://www.testufo.com/photo#pps=960

this image doesn't change in clarity when you stop or move it on a crt. i have yet to meet any type of flattech that doesn't show a slight deviance.

>>105976813
chimneys are usually not at the front of a fireplace. do you know how indoor fireplaces work? i'm not an expert by any means, but i grew up in a house made in 1959 and we had a fireplace we used each year

>>105976820
This has nothing to do with quality, purely to do with economy of scale. If they can sell you 1 quality product or 5 crappy products at a higher margin and volume they'll choose the latter. Why do you think wooden furniture died out? Real wooden furniture is the CRTs of home furnishing.

>>105975501 (OP)
>We
You're free to do what ever you want kid
Fuck off then

>>105976835
>if they can sell you
translation:
>if you want to buy

People don't want shit old technology like CRT.

>>105976833
Where I live almost everh house as a chimney and are vertical. The level of depth a TV alcove would have would infringe into that vertical profile.

>>105976829
Sitting in a room during the night with the lights off my screen was pretty much just like an OLED display with pitch blacks, until about 5 hours later when it turned red.

>>105976848
>every house has*

>>105976849
>lights off with a CRT
enjoy the eye strain, i'll stick with my superior panel tech and cancer free lifestyle

>>105976847
>if you want to buy
What people want is literally irrelevant, they can always be told to want something they dont know they want.
>People don't want shit old technology like CRT.
Thats the point. They will accept a new toy even if they dont need it because its new, modern, trend, all that stuff. American advertising works well this way.

>>105976849
>>105976863
I was just about to say kek

>>105976848
the chimney in our house was not out the front, it was near the back of the inside of the fireplace (the wall above the fireplace looked normal, the chimney was more on the outside if anything). i do agree a crt-sized inset would be really far back, but it'd probably still work. i haven't personally seen someone mount a tv over a fireplace

>>105976863
>enjoy the eye strain
It's literally darker than the BenQ professional display with its eyecare nonsense at its dimmest setting.
>cancer free lifestyle
What the fuck are you on about?

>>105976864
>the free market is wrong!
ok commie shitskin

>>105976875
see unlike you i used to game all day with a CRT when they were current tech and some nights I couldn't close my eyes when i laid down to sleep it was so painful, we are NEVER going back

>>105976863
>what is a test scenario
retard

>>105975501 (OP)
Because nobody cares about you, your shitty childhood memories and your delusions and the world isn't here to accomodate you tying your identity to obsolete trash from decades ago.

>>105976882
>muh free marketz
No such thing. Culture is always top down stream from law.
>muh commie
You are living in a system with Communist elements and dont even know it. Also, KGB would regulalry visit the USA to study their advertising propaganda for research purposes.

>>105976887
That just leaves more for me to buy up and enjoy while you remain a miserable sour grapes faget.

>>105976900
how come people playing professional videogames with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line don't use CRT?

>>105976882
>see unlike you i used to game all day with a CRT when they were current tech and some nights I couldn't close my eyes when i laid down to sleep it was so painful, we are NEVER going back
ok
i'm sure that might have been an issue with some people, playing for hours on end at 60Hz in a dark room with flicker sensitivity issues. but i did the same thing and never had an issue with it, nor have i known someone who has ever complained about crt flicker outside of just framerates, not actual discomfort

>>105976908
how come fighter jet pilots use crt projectors in their simulations?

>>105976762
>If I was pro
Well you aren't and you know what pros were playing on? LCDs
Faggot.

>>105976908
how come speedrunners use crt's?

>>105976832
>i played quake 3 at a very high level
You didn't. Stop lying.

>>105976801
Actually modern electronics would have massively boosted the performance of CRTs.

Old CRT tubes were terrible, but towards the end the tube had been perfected, and it was the electronics that were the limiting factor. A mid range CRT could already display 4K resolution, but at a low refresh rate and using interlaced, but these were electronics limitations.

One thing that could have been changed to make CRTs a lot better is to get rid of VGA, instead you would bring the ramdac into the monitor, and place it on the neck board. You would drive the video amplifier directly from the ramdac, nothing else in the analog path. All adjustments and calibration would be done digitally.

>>105976925
great comeback.
thanks for the laugh, you're pathetic

>>105976908
sponsorships, ignorance

>>105976931
i have, no need to convince you.

>>105976933
i can't imagine what a crt tube (heh, tube tube) could do with modern electronics. i have a 30 yo mid-range 13" monitor here which i can drive up to 160Hz with the original circuitry

>>105976928
because they are autistic trannies?

is that seriously your argument right now? autistic trannies use something so it must be good for normal people?

>>105976936
these organizations spend millions on performance coaches, custom training software, quantitative analysis people but then completely drop the ball on which monitor they choose?

>>105975501 (OP)
>we stop
implying that we have any agency in these matters. we will use what is provided.

>>105976953
and this is you're argument? they spend lots on money on something so they must know everything? not the people doing practicing frame-perfect tricks?
using "autism" to shame someone won't get you far here on /g/

>>105976989
I'm starting to realise...this person IS the autistic speedrunning tranny. That is why they are defending CRT's like this.

They live in this autistic little bubble of the most insanely specific usecase for CRT's and is extending this to the rest of the population.

CRT's are NEVER coming back. Not for normal people, not for pro-gaming, not for gaming. NEVER.

>>105976908
Tournament organizers and sponsors are going to have different priorities, while players ride the upgrade cycles to stay on the bleeding edge. Most simply do not have the thought enter, and even so weight and space applies along with need for pixel resolution in some games. Not a hard question to answer.

>>105976933
>A mid range CRT could already display 4K resolution
This is very much so bogus. Just because you can push a bajillion pixels over the pixels doesn't automatically mean that the phosphor dots and the physical mask on the monitor are good enough to display all the detail, or that the scanning beams are tight enough.

I can send 3840x240 into any consumer CRT TV and it will display an image perfectly fine, that doesn't mean it gets anywhere close to actually displaying 3840 horizontal pixels worth of resolution, nor does it mean the tube is capable of doing so.

>>105975501 (OP)
Can you even lift one?

>>105977043
Most pro tournaments are held online in players bedrooms.

>>105976829
yes

>>105977059
>pitch black room
>tranime pedo
say less

Because LCDs were superior for office drone tasks, and you could get a large thin piece of shit LCD for cheap. For 20-years gamers were forced to pretend, or actually believed in case they never had seen a CRT in action, that they were acceptable for gaming. Only high refresh rate OLEDs with BFI have started to replicate the motion clarity.

>>105977096
For map autism games and such I'm sure LCDs were superior but that's about it.

>>105977096
Now do OLED.

>>105977096
crt's haven't been the default in over 20 years, there's likely lots of people here right now too young to have even used a crt at all.
i recently showed my friends' 20yo kid my crt and he noted how smooth it looked and how my mouse felt "too fast", even though i use a lower dpi than he does (he spends all day playing games, way more than i do these days). he grew up with lcd's and simply hasn't had exposure to lower response times than his current lcd monitor

>>105977096
LCDs were more expensive that run of the mill CRTs when they were new here. They still took off because of the inherent superiority of LCD over CRT.

>>105977132
Yeah, inherent superiority for most mass market tasks, which is what drives investment decisions. CRTs aren't something you just make a little on the side.

>>105977119
He wouldn't say that if he had a modern high refresh LCD panel.

>>105977107
use case for motion on a monitor?

>>105977153
he has a modern high refresh rate lcd panel (144Hz, my nearly 30yo crt was set to 160Hz)

>>105977166
>144hz
>modern high refresh
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>105977096
OLED is still smeary compared to CRTs and you know it. It's hard to replicate it when the comparison is literally perfect motion clarity.

>>105977132
they are better in many respects, they cost less to make, they smaller and more robust which means you can ship more of them more easily, they use less power, they don't flicker, they don't need to warm up, they're thinner, they're lighter, they take up less space on a desk, they produce a sharper static picture, etc, etc. i'm fully aware of the benefits of lcds and i'm not ignorant to why they took over for most users (most users being people use office and email all day)

>>105977171
>wait, not like that!
alternatively;
>the NEW ones are good now, i swear!

>>105977189
and pro gamers, dont forget they all abandoned CRTs like 20 years ago

>>105977196
144hz is budget shitskin tier now, 240hz is the minimum anyone would consider high refresh gaming in this day and age

because they take up your entire desk retard

>>105977096
Yeah, but motion clarity is just one aspect of image quality, CRTs are way behind in pretty much everything else. I still have my last CRT monitor and a couple of CRT TVs from back in the day. Recently (well, a couple of years ago) I gave them another try, I played multiple modern games on both my modern LCD and on the old CRT and overall I didn't find anything modern I preferred the CRT over the LCD. The screen is much smaller, it's nowhere near as sharp, the lower refresh rate was noticeable (it's just a 1600x1200 75Hz screen), it doesn't go as bright, there's no HDR, geometry was never truly perfect and obviously the motion was the only part that was far superior. But I found that in practice playing games on my 160Hz LCD I don't really perceive problems due to motion clarity while actually playing. It's much worse at 60Hz but at 160Hz it's visible but not really a problem to me.

The CRT monitor was only truly superior on 60FPS locked 2D sidescroller games and those instead revealed subtle linearity issues, so they weren't a complete win either.

On the CRT TV side of things, I have to admit that 240p games on a real CRT TV just look way better than anything you can do to them on a modern screen, so I built an emulation PC and hooked it up to a real CRT TV as a permanent setup. But on the modern side of things, there's nothing I'd really take a CRT monitor for over a modern LCD or OLED.

>>105977200
>144hz is budget shitskin tier now, 240hz is the minimum anyone would consider high refresh gaming in this day and age
of course. didn't stop you saying crts were over when 144Hz was new
you can throw (almost) as much Hz as you like at the problem, it still won't beat crt clarity (at 60Hz) as the issue is more fundamental than that (and that's assuming you can even render your games/media at 240fps, remember, running a game at 60fps on a 240fps lcd will produce the exact same motion performance as an lcd at 60Hz)

>>105977228
if that was true pro gamers who make millions of dollars over their careers would switch from LCD to CRT and they don't

>>105977235
if you could buy crt's new they probably would. there's a practical element to this as well. crt's are becoming harder to obtain, especially later/high end ones

>>105977243
There is absolutely nothing stopping pro esports organisations with tens of millions of dollars of capital from squiring CRTs for their players if they were the superior technology for pro gaming.

>>105977248
harder to obtain is not the same as more expensive to obtain. they're certainly linked, but money can't magic up any number of good condition high end late model crt's, it doesn't work like that

>>105977214
fpbp

>Be 13 years old
>It's summer my friends want to LAN CoD 1 as 1.5 came out with Tigertown
>we somehow find some cheapo 10mbit switch
>4 player lan let's go!
>Mom and dad on vacation
>grandma and grandpa have no car
>Have Samsung Syncmaster 997MB
>18.2 kg
>I carry that thing over 45 minutes to my friends place yet it's only like 1.5 KM away from me
>Other friend carries my PC case probably like 9 kg or something
>We have mad fun for a few hours
>We're playing CoD1 Pavlov and my friend gets spawn camped by another one get buttmad
>His mom bursts in at 22 tells us to fuck off and not to come back tomorrow
>Tomorrow morning I have to go and carry the damn thing back it takes me at least an hour this time because I'm tried as fuck
>The other friend can't help me carry my PC so I have to waste another hour and a half carrying it back

Fuck.

>>105977266
>hire quant/ai guys to create custom software to analyse every single data point of a game
>hire performance coaches to mentally prepare the players
>build entire studios for the players to live and play in
>easy
>have a guy buy 5 CRT monitors
>IMPOSSIBLE

You're delusional. CRT's are dead and NEVER coming back. NO ONE wants them. They are e-waste.

>>105977276
i moved to another country and let my friend hold onto my 21" crt monitor, it sounds small by lcd standards but that boy was HUGE, an absolute unit. i really miss it
>we somehow find some cheapo 10mbit switch
*cough* "somehow found", friend of mine broken into an unused room at out college and stole a 16-port 100Mbit hub (yes, hub) for me. it was great

>>105977299
I never saw a 21" CRT to be honest the biggest ones I saw was 19" like my Samsung.

As a kid I was totally unaware of any advanced CRT technology as it wasn't really sold here in Croatia or Czechia were I also lived.

Or maybe my brain just ignored them once it saw the prices?

>>105977290
>NO ONE wants them. They are e-waste.
Fucks me off that on the one hand this is true but on the other a bunch of autists and greedy chancers mean I can't just go get one for free or next to nothing off the usual internet markets to use with my vintage PCs.
Absolutely kicking myself for letting the family throw out the ones we had way back when, but it's not like we knew any better at the time.

>>105977324
All of these are not 19... and 19 inch was already small by todays standards.

>>105977290
they are turning into a vintage item for retards like record players

>>105977316
15" was your typical budget size, 17" the next step up, 19" was the fancy model, but the 21", that was not something you normally saw in your local computer reseller pamphlet. i got it second hand at the time and honestly i don't even remember how i got it, but it was a monster
>Or maybe my brain just ignored them once it saw the prices?
most likely. 17" was as big as most people went before they went to lcd's, even 19" was uncommon

>>105977324
they are priced that way because you have to either dumpster dive, hoard a giant heavy paperweight for 20 years, and then pay huge shipping to get rid of it

that isn't really expensive at all in that context

>>105977324
>flat screen
eugh

>>105977290
You are comparing about buying something on the market that actually exists vs. restarting the production of something discontinued. You know you can't just walk into a factory and turn the lights on and there is a ready factory line waiting to the turned on with special raw materials stocked in storage, and all the domain expert guys waiting for you in the coffee run to run the place.

>>105975501 (OP)
>400 lb 40inch CRT v 20 lb
>250 watt power v 35 watt

>>105977324
buy one from ebay that delivers. then request refund saying it's not working. Ebay usually sides with buyer

>>105977354
So are you suggesting an organisation worth 50-100m couldn't find 5 CRTs to equip their players with? That is the single reason they won't use them?

Yet apparently every speed runner can get one from their basement streaming to 100 people.

>>105977360
na, i'm white. i picked up a crt a while ago where the buyer mentioned there's "missing pins" in the vga connector. i told him when i was there that that was normal for this era of monitor and why.

>>105975586
Why couldn't they just invent slimmer CRTs? Nothing is impossible.

>>105977360
>>105977422
also, i paid him in cash $5 more than the listing. he offered to send me the $5 back, but i insisted i was happy with it. because he was also white

>>105975501 (OP)
because ur mom gay lmao gotem

>>105977429

>>105977444
Why didn't it sell?

>>105977455
this was in like 2006, but iirc it was because of some patent trolling bullshit

>You need to own the original hardware on a CRT in order to play older games properly
No matter how much retrofags scream about this, it really isn't viable in the long run. Older consoles and crts are dying or will die out eventually and many people simply don't have access to this kind of setup anymore. There needs to be another way to properly preserve older media so I'd rather have all of this autism be focused on findinf alternatives, whether that's emulation or something else.

>>105977455
>>105977458
-- note that that was a consumer elecronics display, i don't think it made it to production/consumers

>>105977455
because it didn't show feet

>>105977462
staunchly picking sides to this has always been stupid. I love playing on OG hardware and tubes because I'm autistic for the actual hardware more than I am the actual games, but I also think emulation is important and a great way to play older titles if you're not like me and can't be arsed dealing with all that strange old tech. On the flipside people who insist it's a total perfect replacement that makes the OG hardware obsolete and pointless are wrong and obnoxious too, at least for anything newer than a PS1.

Not having choppy ass motion blur is basically the only thing CRTs have left and it's only because of sample and hold. Can't wait for my 960hz TN shit panel that accurately recreates CRT strobing.

>>105977505
reminds me of a post i made about emulating metal slug which caught someone off-guard. emulation is great when you have appropriate I/O for it (ok i didn't have an arcade style controller, but using a crt tele sure did give practically identical arcade video output)
>>45154077

>>105977109
OLED looks the exact same as an LCD motion clarity wise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4xgLUdQhKA
LCDs and OLEDs are both sample&hold technology. LCDs aren't blurry primarily because of response times, but because of sample&hold. Poor response times do add some trailing and other minor artifacts, but even with instant response LCD/OLED doesn't look anywhere close to a CRT.

>>105977505
I agree, my point is that old tech will sadly not last forever so we should also be looking into other ways to make playing old games on a level as perfect as the OG hardware. Dunno if emulation or something else will be able to do that but it is something to consider for long term preservation.

>>105977634
>OLED looks the exact same as an LCD motion clarity wise.
false

>>105977645
You're more wrong than you can even imagine. LCDs can look BETTER than any OLED motion-clarity wise. LCDs with backlight strobe technology can emulate CRTs better than any BFI technology on OLEDs, reason being that OLEDs can't get bright enough for a short enough strobe to actually eliminate motion blur effectively.
Motion clarity wise, CRT > LCD > OLED

>>105977681
yeah there are some cool anti-blur technologies, the only thing I was addressing was
>OLED looks the exact same as an LCD motion clarity wise
which is incorrect

because it's fucking shit

>>105977697
https://youtu.be/2YBJFYGtmQk?feature=shared&t=968
Here's 2 OLEDs compared against a fucking VA monitor.
Notice how particularly the last line looks the exact same.
TN/IPS would also look the same as OLEDs in the darker lines.

>>105977722
And before anyone nitpicks pixels, CRTs look like this in the exact same test.

LCDs and OLEDs are equally shit compared to CRTs.

>>105977733
Here's the absolute best OLEDs can do with BFI and 120hz.

>>105977722
>>105977733
OLED is still slightly clearer even ignoring the dark smearing example, you're right it's not much and yeah CRT is still the goat
I wonder what hz you'd need to get close to CRT motion clarity
I'm still waiting for someone to make a proper injector for this https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/

>>105977763
>I wonder what hz you'd need to get close to CRT motion clarity
High enough where no motion ever skips pixels, as in, nothing on screen moves faster than 1 pixel per frame. That's thousands of hertz.
>I'm still waiting for someone to make a proper injector for this https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/
The only thing it improves over software bfi is that it flickers less. It's no better than any existing software bfi solutions motion clarity wise, and worse than most hardware strobing.
Some LCD TVs had rolling strobe technology.

>>105977790
>Some LCD TVs had rolling strobe technology.
And OLEDs have had it for 15 years, but you're not allowed to have this technology.

>>105975501 (OP)
top gamecube
bottom emulator

>>105976813
you know you can add bends in the chimney, right?

>>105977790
this seems pretty good

>>105977645
true, oled's are typically worse

>>105977823
Increase scrolling speed and it's no longer sufficient

>>105977763
>I wonder what hz you'd need to get close to CRT motion clarity
the answer is that you're doing it wrong.
think about it, let's say it takes 1200Hz to do it, literally what are you going to be running at 1200fps? the beauty of CRT's is that you get perfection motion at /any refresh rate/. to actually benefit from high display refresh rate you need the software to actually generate unique frames for them. 60fps content will look great on a 60Hz crt, but will look like a 60hz lcd even if your lcd is 1200Hz, because that's just how sample and hold works. if you want to compete with a crt you can't use sample and hold. but then lcd's simply aren't nearly bright enough to function like a crt does. people like to say crts aren't bright enough, but this is because crt's are only outputtting light at a single point at any time, while an lcd is fully lit

>>105977634
>60hz
lmfao

>>105977877
>literally what are you going to be running at 1200fps
quake 3 baby

>>105977904
Here's OLEDs at 240hz and 360hz >>105977722 and here's one with state-of-art BFI >>105977762
Still looks way worse than a 60hz CRT

>>105977917
ok but 360hz is low refresh these days and is going to be far superior to a 60hz crt in so many other ways its not even close

>>105977936
What about every 2d game ever? They're all 60hz.

>>105977944
gay faggot shit for nostalgiatroons

>>105977763
Black frame insertion is an abomination and will never be able to properly match a CRT. There is actually a way to make OLEDs have CRT motion right now, but they will never do it. All you need to do is place a resistor across the hold capacitor. This would cause the OLED pixels to decay exactly like CRT phosphor decay, no black frame insertion bullshit needed.

>>105977958
What else are you even going to play? AAA and esports slop?
All the good games are 2d indie titles.

>>105977096
We're almost there. Now we need:
>monitor firmware level scanning technique
>or low level OS-integrated
There is a CRT scanning filter out there that is like a better version of BFI, it mimics how CRTs update the pixels. It is laggy and sucks but if you have a 240hz oled you can get a glimpse of how fucking good it can be for motion clarity
We just need that shit directly into the monitor, or into the OS at the very least
>higher brightness OLEDs
Upcoming, to counter balance the brightness loss from the scanning

>>105977964
why not just send an angry email to an OLED manufacturer with your idea

>>105977915
lol yea

>>105977964
this in an oled firmware would be awesome
https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/

>>105978026
Its garbage. Not even remotely like how a real CRT behaves. No form of black frame insertion of variations of that idea will ever be acceptable. We need hardware support for CRT like behavior.

>>105978044
it's not the same, but for it to to be the same would require extremely bright pixels

>>105978054
I think it might be doable. Modern OLED is far brighter than CRTs were so there is some headroom. We could probably get away with over-driving the pixels somewhat since the decay circuit I have proposed would keep them illuminated for only a short time limiting heating.

>>105977356
>250 watt power
lol what

>>105978089
>Modern OLED is far brighter than CRTs were so there is some headroom
the question is how bright is an oled pixel vs. a crt dot. the average full-screen brightness is a whole different story

>>105978158
>>105977356
Manual specs.

>>105975501 (OP)
I don't want to try to get rid of 100lbs of e-waste.

>>105977455
I don't think it made it to market due to some patent fuckery or something.

>>105978216
40" is insanely big for CRTs. The vast, vast majority of screens in use were much smaller and <100W power consumption, most likely closer to 50W if anything.

>>105977458
>>105978252
we have to pull patentniggers out of the streets and publicly torture them to death

>>105978265

>>105976931
it was quite easy mate, not him but other old fag
As long as you had a better internet connection and decent hardware you were already streets ahead of most

>>105978252
CRT monitor is 60W if even that. Really not that much more than 24" ccfl lcd.
Maybe you're confusing it with plasma which did pull ungodly current from the wall.

>>105978167
I was going on brightness per unit area. For comparison, the oled on my phone is far far brighter than my CRT, like 10% on the phone is brighter than what MY crt can do on full brightness. And modern OLED tvs are even brighter still.

>>105978327
Nah, I said <100W and most likely around 50W, I'm talking about CRTs. I don't know what kind of power consumption plasma TVs had, I never had one of those.

>>105976849
>turned red.
what? I used a CRT from 2014 all the way till 2020 and I never recall seeing it turning red. Even after hours of playing Counter Strike at night. Do you mean the entire screen turning red or just the blacks becoming reddish? I never seen anything like that before.

>>105978413
yea, i'm also confused by his post. i can't think of a natural failure that involves a crt turning red

>>105978453
If it's a VGA monitor or a SCART TV running RGB it could easily happen if the connection is wonky an the green and blue signals don't make proper contact, all that's left then would be the red component of the image.

>>105978489
that's also the only thing i can think of, though;
a) going from full colour to just red is unlikely, as it would mean two connections coming loose at once
b) the insinuation that using a crt for 5 hours or so would cause anything like this

>>105975501 (OP)
because LCD does not produce a greasy inaccurate mess like with CRT

>>105977573
you can see the color inaccuries produced by CRTS.

>>105978982
that was recorded on a sony compact camera from 2010. the picture is hardly comparable to how it looked in real life, there's absolutely nothing you can gleam from pixel peeping here

>>105976922
they don't. i've been to a variety of military simulators and they're mostly based on projection TVs

>>105978982
Hard to stomach truth nuke.

A high end LCD is MILES better than a CRT. No screen that looks like it was covered in vasoline with obvious artifacts like with >>105978947 or color innacuracys like with >>105978982

>But crts can produce true blacks.
except the picture quailty gets ruined by inaccurate colors like with >>105978982 and all the other flaws.

>>105979067
i'm not sure why you think "projection tv's" mean something other than crt projectors. not all rear projection tv's are crt-based, but many are

>>105979051
This happens with every CRT. I assure you it DOES happen. This is a problem from my very first computer I owned which was my power mac g4 cube on its CRT monitor, all the way to even more fancy high end ones(Although Apples displays are already extremley high end even back then)

>>105975501 (OP)
They stopped making them, and LCDs started getting far larger screen sizes, resolutions, while having significantly less weight and depth.

>>105979095
if you think >>105978982 is how it looks like in real life, you've never seen a crt tv before in your life

>>105975501 (OP)
>Why did we stop using CRT monitors?
Because flat screens are better on every metric outside colour gamut.

>>105979107
retarded zoomer they literally hang these from the ceiling and use special 90k$ (still just cloth; MIC premium pls understand) screens but just flip the image so it's projected from the back and seen from the backside of the screen

>>105979095
Notice how on the LCD the image even close up looks good, Try that on a CRT and the entire image will break apart when looking close up.

>>105979135
even though it DOES happen on CRTS.
this is a thing even on APPLE crt displays back in the day which were extremely high quailty. It happened on EVERY single CRT I owned. You just have to acutally look and not dismiss artifacts like you normally do.

>>105979095
>"high end lcd is better then lcd"
people have been saying this for a good 15 years, yet if you mention anything but a specific model than came out a month ago, it's invalid. in 10 years people will be saying "um actually that came out in 2025, that's OLD and doesn't count!"

>>105975501 (OP)
Burn-in
Use of specialty chemicals and processes
High manufacturing cost
Large physical weight
Bulky and deep form factor
High energy consumption
Fragile glass construction
Significant electromagnetic emissions
Required degaussing to prevent distortion
Magnetic field interference
Limited resolution scalability
Flicker at low refresh rates
Poor geometry and convergence consistency
Curved screen distortion
High heat output
Noisy operation (internal coil buzz)
Complex analog calibration required
Long warm-up time for color stability
Limited brightness compared to LCD/LED
Environmental concerns over leaded glass
Obsolete parts and repair difficulties
Lower contrast ratio compared to OLEDs
Viewing angle issues at extremes
Larger packaging and shipping costs
Safety issues in case of implosion
Harder to mount or wall-hang
Difficult recycling process
Limited color accuracy consistency over time
Screen glare from glass surface
Lower pixel density
Greater physical storage space required
Lower aesthetic appeal in modern environments
Higher failure rates in aging units
Aging phosphors reduce image quality
Heavier environmental footprint overall
CRT technology not well-suited for mobile devices
Scarce engineering expertise as workforce retires
Harder to automate manufacturing compared to flat panels
Flicker and eye strain for some users
Interlaced scan issues with modern content
Not suitable for modern HDR standards
Limited production volume made them niche
Fewer economies of scale as LCD production ramped up
Harder to implement touchscreens
Disruptive to surrounding electronics due to EMI
Not scalable to very large screen sizes easily
Subpar color uniformity across screen
Mechanical wear from built-in fans and moving parts
Declining support from content and device manufacturers
Regulatory pressures over hazardous materials
Compatibility issues with digital broadcasting
And most importantly, people stopped buying them when LCDs hit the market

>>105975501 (OP)
Because they are staggeringly inefficient, heavy and offer little in the way of advantage over a monitor. If a game runs at 60fps and has 1ms of monitor delay (which even cheap non-CRT monitors have done for the last decade) you literally cannot fucking percieve a difference between that and a monitor since each INDIVIDUAL frame is 16.6ms.

Even if we go above 60fps (which almost no CRT's could do btw) lag of a mere few milliseconds is still more of less imperceptible until you hit what, 120fps? 240fps? Even then calling it "perceptible" is a MASSIVE overstatement when network ping and variance for most retards on wi-fi and bad infrastructure between the server and client will dwarf that if you're playing anything online (which is the only place imperceptible trash like this matters anyway)

This isn't even going into the garbage resolutions on most CRT's and the image quality being trash unless you're playing something at 360p specifically designed to cheat "quality" out of blurred CRT displays.
Fuck scart connectors, fuck CRT's, fuck the fake nostalgia faggots who push for them to come back for some fucking reason.

>>105979182
My alienware AW2725DF is better than 99.999999% of CRTs in any category you can come up with including all of
>>105979190

>>105978982
you know that bloom and flicker isn't visible in real life, right? much less the chromatic aberration. who are you trying to fool?

>>105979190
>CRT technology not well-suited for mobile devices
This is the big one.

>>105979250
we are not talking about bloom. I know thats from the camera

You admit that the image suffers from chromatic aberration producing a lesser image quailty. LCD does not suffer from that flaw.

Heres what I want you to do. Get up close to your CRT like with >>105979174 and you will see how much more clear the image is on LCD

>>105975501 (OP)
if crts were not so bulky we would have never moved on to lcd.

>>105979182
that sony bravia is from the late 2000s

>>105979284
>You admit that the image suffers from chromatic aberration producing a lesser image quailty. LCD does not suffer from that flaw.
what are you even complaining about with >>105978982, then?
>Heres what I want you to do. Get up close to your CRT like with >>105979174 and you will see how much more clear the image is on LCD
it's a game running at 320x224, which is shown in that clip. i'm not sure what you expect to see

>>105977458
The patents are from around 2000 so shouldn't they be expiring right around now?

>>105976624
except they did care, otherwise plasma would have died at the same time , they are heavy and suffer burn in much worse than crts, yet they kept making them until ~2014,

me and the gals LOVE cathode ray tube technology! it absolutely validates all of our identities and the picture is just SO clear and crisp while we order our HRT medication

>>105975501 (OP)
Because we could.

>>105976756
imagine being so retarded, you dont even understand what you posted as a source

>>105975501 (OP)
heavy and power hungry. Also would need too much space to go big

>>105979490
so much this! thank you to the strong and beautiful black woman that assuredly invented CRTs!

>liking old things is now for zoomers
Weird how the Tech Movement wants us to adopt disposable Chinese-made garbage instead of long-lasting American goods, and they claim their crap is “better”. My last CRT lasted me for 30 years since I was born. Perfect picture quality and zero issues. I have never owned a flat panel for longer than 5 years. (((You))) just want us to consoom slop and eagerly await more slop like a bunch of cattle.

NONE of the flat panels from before this decade are in good shape. Meanwhile, CRTs that are many years older are still sold online. Only in the past couple of years has OLED been able to resemble what we once had. And it STILL has problems.

>>105979490
So not only is CRT for zoomers, it’s also for trannies? Or are you just getting paid per shitpost, Rajesh? Do you think the billions of people who used them when they were still relevant were also trannies?

>>105975501 (OP)
You know I couldn't give you a reason.
But the fact that literally no one makes CRTs, not even as a niche company says a lot about the technology.

>>105979490
>>105979572
>>105979590
0/0

>>105979590
umm its just a very ADVANCED technology that companies threw away for hecking CONVENIENCE. the way it works is it's like friggin MAGIC SPACE DUST encased within a BOMB and then flippity floppity floop your retro games look AMAZEBALLS on it

>>105977045
with the way crts work, even if you exceed the dot pitch, you still get more resolution because phosphors can be partially illuminated, you end up with a similar effect to chroma subsampling, since your color resolution is limited, but light and dark is not.

>>105979620
If you used one you would know that pushing them to their max supported resolution always results in it looking softer and more blurry than the "recommended" resolution which is lower than the max. If you were to push ever higher you'd just more and more and more information loss from the signal. This was already the case with the much lower resolutions they were spec'd for compared to what we use today, a color picture tube isn't a magic infinite resolution device.

>>105979190
delete this, now

>>105976397
wdym "costly" lead? it's less than $15 / kilo.

I checked and lead is at $2 / kilo
how is this any issue for a tv lol

Text is really terrible to read on a crt.

>>105976193
It's a gas fireplace, retard; only poor people have to chop wood and clean their fireplace.

>>105979898
>wood is for poor people
If you live in the fucking woods. Good luck keeping up with it in the suburbs or anywhere near an urban centre ontop of tax for it being a woodfire

>>105975501 (OP)
I own an XBR960. It was cool for the time, but I wouldn't go back to it from my modern OLED. The interlacing isn't pleasant to look at and the geometry issues around the edges always bugged me

>>105979182
You typed some dogshit and didn't reply to my post are you still there?

>>105977096
This is such a good demo honestly. It invokes that feeling of unreal otherwordly clarity you struggle to believe when first beholding a CRT again. You go through almost your whole life with these flat panels and don't even know motion can look the way it does on a CRT, and then it's revealed to you just what they've been keeping from you.

>>105979681
it is true, but the amount you can resolve does go up, and it also depends on the beam , I have tested running 3840x2160@60i with one of the adapters, and you can resolve more detail, and at least for my high end crt the softness isn't too bad., the technology definitely had room to scale, real limiter for existing crts is analog transmission, having a long shielded wire is not ideal, higher the bandwidth goes the greater the risk of reflections ect, I suspect that on and existing crt if you upgraded the analog electronics, and used a dac at the tube itself, alot of this softness/artifacts would disappear.

>>105977228
no modern gpu can provide 240fps in any modern game without frame gen and upscaling

>>105979144
You utterly fucking wrong about everything you said just there.

>>105975501 (OP)
It cooks your room in the summer

>>105975501 (OP)
both look like shit

>>105979190
>Viewing angle issues at extremes
You what? CRTs have the best viewing angles out of any display technology, equal to uncoated OLEDs. Both are surface-emissive technology.
>Limited resolution scalability
I have a CRT that can draw anything from 480p to 2160p.
>Interlaced scan issues with modern content
All CRTs can do either progressive or interlace. Virtually all VGA PC monitors were primarily progressive scan.
>Subpar color uniformity across screen
Particularly grey uniformity is better on CRTs than any modern display technology, including OLED.
>Mechanical wear from built-in fans and moving parts
????
Typical CRTs never have fans or anything mechanical about them
>Noisy operation (internal coil buzz)
PC monitors were all generally perfectly silent, no whine or anything

>>105980548
zoom zoom crt tard. re read
Use of specialty chemicals and processes
High manufacturing cost
Large physical weight
Bulky and deep form factor
High energy consumption
Fragile glass construction
Significant electromagnetic emissions
Required degaussing to prevent distortion
Magnetic field interference
Limited resolution scalability
Flicker at low refresh rates
Poor geometry and convergence consistency
Curved screen distortion
High heat output
Noisy operation (internal coil buzz)
Complex analog calibration required
Long warm-up time for color stability
Limited brightness compared to LCD/LED
Environmental concerns over leaded glass
Obsolete parts and repair difficulties
Lower contrast ratio compared to OLEDs
Viewing angle issues at extremes
Larger packaging and shipping costs
Safety issues in case of implosion
Harder to mount or wall-hang
Difficult recycling process
Limited color accuracy consistency over time
Screen glare from glass surface
Lower pixel density
Greater physical storage space required
Lower aesthetic appeal in modern environments
Higher failure rates in aging units
Aging phosphors reduce image quality
Heavier environmental footprint overall
CRT technology not well-suited for mobile devices
Scarce engineering expertise as workforce retires
Harder to automate manufacturing compared to flat panels
Flicker and eye strain for some users
Interlaced scan issues with modern content
Not suitable for modern HDR standards
Limited production volume made them niche
Fewer economies of scale as LCD production ramped up
Harder to implement touchscreens
Disruptive to surrounding electronics due to EMI
Not scalable to very large screen sizes easily
Subpar color uniformity across screen
Mechanical wear from built-in fans and moving parts
Declining support from content and device manufacturers
Regulatory pressures over hazardous materials
Compatibility issues with digital broadcasting
And most importantly, people stopped buying them when LCDs hit the market

>>105980548
>All CRTs can do either progressive or interlace
They could accept progressive signals, but due to the nature of how it works, a CRT always displays with interlacing

>>105980548
>????
Fans relays appature stuff like that

>>105980588
>re read
I would only find more points to contest if I did, and I'd rather not put any more effort in replying to this ChatGPT post before you acknowledge my criticisms

>>105980612
That is only perhaps true with some digital 2000s CRT televisions that had digital signal processing, but 99% of CRTs never were capable of buffering anything, as we know from their famous lack of any input lag. No PC CRT ever had any DSP capabilities at all. And all of them could accept either interlace or progressive, and display it as such.
>but due to the nature of how it works,
Please explain "how it works", because you don't actually know anything at all.

>>105980626
>Fans
Again CRTs never had fans.
>relays
Okay those they had. Though I like it when my monitor produces several big relay clicks during start-up.
>appature
Aperture grilles were entirely static. Literally just metal wire grille to create a "shadow" so a particular electron gun couldn't hit anything but a particular color of phosphor from it's POV. That's how color CRT work btw, with "shadow masks".

>>105980701
>Again CRTs never had fans.
Or, to be more precise, CRTs have fans just like LCDs do. Incredibly rarely. Few rare examples exist for both, but neither generally have them.

>>105980588
seek help

>>105980612
no?, progressive scan is just drawing all of the lines per frame, interlacing is drawing every other line, alternating fields every frame.

>>105976161
This is now where Hatsune Miku figures reside.
Honestly, I consider it an upgrade.
Hail Miku.

it's cheaper to make everything out of plastic

>>105980612
>but due to the nature of how it works
Since you never replied and I really wanted to talk about it, here's how it actually works:

You need to know that a CRT is always scanning the beam vertically at a constant speed, scanlines actually droop to the right.
To progressive scan a CRT, you just generate the vertical sync pulse in sync with the horizontal scanline.
But to interlace, you start the vertical sync pulse in middle of a horizontal scan line. The CRT will just obey and immediately start moving the beam back to the top, but ends up half a scanline off vertically from where it began the previous frame, because you sent the sync pulse half a scanline off the previous frame!
Interlace is literally just a timing hack that takes advantage of how absolutely crude and primitive CRT drive and sync electronics are. Thus any and all CRTs can do both interlace and progressive, ignoring those few weird digital TVs.

>>105952341

>>105975501 (OP)
Good CRT to buy in <current year>? No I won't spend more than 300 bucks on a monitor

>>105983759
well you can get something thats shit or pay that much in shipping alone

>>105975501 (OP)
>Why did we stop using CRT monitors?
because big screen tvs used to be a status symbol, like a nice car

suddenly boomers could buy 60 inch displays that cost hundreds instead of thousands and didn't way a metric ton and take up half a living room

is there a good adapter cable I can use with my PVM to use it as a monitor? or should I just get something like the GBSC/Retrotink/Morph

>>105983759
That's not how this market works, you look what's available. Most likely you wont see any decent monitors for months, and the one you see will be listed for an exorbitant price.
But with enough time, effort and dedication it's still plausible to fetch 21" Trinitrons for modest prices. Best chances for that are in European countries.

>>105977071
tranime pedo website albeit

>>105977071
>sharty
/qa/ lost to a bunch of trannies kek. imagine being BTFO by troons. I guess you don't have to imagine kek

>>105975501 (OP)
They always gave me wicked headaches.

>>105975700
>cut out hole in wall
>build frame inside hole
>place crt in hole
wow so hard

>>105980367
>no modern gpu can provide 240fps in any modern game without frame gen and upscaling

>>105984677
>$3500 in the gpu/cpu to play 1080p medium

>>105984694
i can almost hear you moving the goalposts over the coil whine from your CRT

>>105977071
You can't do "pitch black room" with LCDs.
If you try, they turn literally grey.

>>105984870
i also wouldn't because im not retarded

>get a computer for Christmas in 2025
>cry because it comes with a CRT instead of a TFT

you weren't there

>>105979427
I held out hope for years until a bit after they expired probably 4 or 5 years ago now; now it's just despair

>>105977132
>They still took off because significantly more could be shipped in the same truckload
FTFY

>>105975501 (OP)
i never did

Because the display tubes are vacuum internally they need to get made heavier and heavier to handle the structural forces as they get bigger. LCD's could get bigger and be cheap as their tech developed.

I had one of these hp-a7217a (purchased for me new :) ) at work for CAD. It was amazing when new compared to everything else, but the lcds that replaced it years later were an upgrade.

https://crtdatabase.com/crts/hp/hp-a7217a

>>105985517
i payed a premium to replace my 19 inch CRT with a smaller LCD because it was SO much better

>>105987076
You should have paid that premium for a CR1 chassis Trinitron and enjoyed picture quality still unsurpassed today.

>>105987090
no thanks I will never go back to CRT, they were dogshit and im glad they are all being thrown out and destroyed

>>105987076
I'm guessing you weren't a rhythm gamer

>>105987143
correct, im a straight white man

>>105987123
Your loss.

>>105987240
the only loss here is my taxes paying for you to live with your parents and troon out

>>105987268
Mindbroken by a CRT

>>105987281
that's just the eye strain

>>105987300
kek
Should have bought that CR1 Trinitron, as this thing can do 1200p at 110hz, no eyestrain with this even with the most sensitive bitch eyes

>>105987311
>110hz in 2025
lmfao

>>105987352
Reminder that those CRT 110hz look far better than 360+ whatever hz on an OLED >>105977722
>>105977634
There is no usecase for high refresh rates like that if you could display motion as well as CRTs do

>>105987384
if that were true pro gamers who have millions of dollars on the line would be playing on CRT not 500+hz TN panels

>>105987352
high refresh rate on crt's mostly just affects flicker on crt's. you can get perfectly smooth and blur-free high speed motion even at 50Hz on a CRT. in fact the refresh rate doesn't affect motion clarity /at all/ due to how they display images
super high refresh rates are only notable on lcd's because they improve motion clarity, which is simply a given at any rate on a crt

>>105987423
*refresh rate doesn't affect motion clarity /at all/ due to how they display images
to be clear, for objects you're following with your eyes. for objects moving separately they do look different at different refresh rates

>>105987416
Those esports ewaste TN panels literally include backlight strobing technology which (poorly) replicates CRT motion clarity, by strobing the display like a CRT does.

>>105987452
if they replicate it poorly these people who have millions of dollars on the line would use a CRT

>>105975501 (OP)
>same screen
>it's the screen's fault
what?

>>105987465
i actually have no idea what op is conveying with that picture.
it looks like a crt hdtv, perhaps comparing composite with an hdtv input

>>105987456
It works well enough for counter-strike.
Those displays are otherwise utter garbage gaming monitors. They have dogshit colors and can't display low refresh rates blur-free. Things I consider important when playing the vast majority of games outside of esports slop.

>>105987485
>CRTs are superior for motion clarity
>people number 1 priority is motion clarity who have millions of dollars on the line use TN LCDs
>yeah well ok, but CRT's have better colors anyway! (narrator: they don't)
this is what they call cope

>>105987533
You didn't even read my post.
LCDs *can* reach CRT-like motion >>105977681 in some specific circumstances, usually requiring high refresh rates, as that already reduces motion blur to a degree and the strobing has to work less hard to maintain acceptable brightness if it can strobe more frequently. But this is more than good enough for counter-strike, where you largely just hold angles.
But CRTs don't have these limitations, PLUS they have superior colors and contrast. They are equal at best when it comes to counter-strike, but far far superior when it comes to any other game.
Do you understand my point?

>>105987591
if that were true people would use CRTs instead of throwing them in a dumpster and buying LCDs

>>105987620
i hate to break it to you anon, most people are idiots. yes even the pro gamers you simp for.

>>105987620
We are. Who do you think you are arguing with? A CRT user.

>>105975501 (OP)
who's we

>>105987620
many people do still use crt's

>>105987632
it's an argumentum ad populum. "billions of flies can't be wrong!"

>>105987646
Well I gave you an entirely fallacy-free argument here >>105987591, which you replied to with a shitty fallacy >>105987620 yourself
Nonexistent self awareness

>>105987638
no they do not, no one makes them, it is an incredibly niche and small group of people

>>105987656
>you
neither of the quotes in that post are me

>>105987664
Ah you were pointing out that the person I replied to argued ad populum, and not critiquing me.
Weird for you to reply to me about it, and not the person who originally made the argument.

>>105987660
There is a lot more demand for these monitors than there is supply. High end CRT monitors go for absurd money these days.

>>105987732
a complete mint black eizo 21" went for $1500 recently. rightfully so.

>>105987688
i didn't say your post was argumentum ad populum, "it's a" should have made that obvious

>>105987732
there is not a lot of demand at all

>>105987769
Decades of internet arguments have conditioned me to assume that if you reply to me, you are critiquing me. I confirmation biased myself into thinking this was the case here too, chalking up any signs to the contrary to poor english or such.

>>105987800
Create a fake listing for an FW900 and see how many replies you get within the first 10 minutes

>>105980496
I felt like my corneas were being zapped with static back in the day.

>>105987826
that's fair. i'm not an ESL, and posts one suspects to be ESL do have to be treated differently. at the same time though i refuse to make my posts more accessible to ESL's or to write in a less natural way just to remove any related ambiguity. they have their own people to talk to.

>>105987800
Until 5 years ago there was indeed not much, however internet does the internet thing, and now there is.
Same shit as vinyl records.

>>105987868
there is almost zero demand for CRTs, it wouldn't register on a graph comparing monitor types

>>105987893
and thank god for that. means people that know their superiority can usually get them for cheap or nothing, bar the few top models.

>>105987868
This vid was often attributed to the rise in CRT demand, and it's indeed been about 5 years now. Quite a lot of influencer slop has come out since too.
But there's also been very good developments because of this, eg gamma-corrected cumulative deviation response time measurements that were developed by CRT enthusiasts and are now used by all major display reviewers. So many more people understand blurbusters test now too, and motion clarity in general is a lot less mysterious topic these days.

>>105987893
How can there be demand for something that doesn't even exist anymore? Most people buying gaming monitors these days have never even seen a CRT.
Build it, and they'll come. Assuming you can build it economically enough, which isn't possible anymore.

>>105987933
they did build CRTs, and everyone stopped buying them when the superior product, LCDs, came to market

>>105987945
For the normie needs LCDs are indeed better (watching 24 FPS content).
But it's not a direct replacement as the black levels fucking suck and 60 FPS content is blurry as shit.

>>105987945
That's not really what happened, CRT development and production was shut down very prematurely. Eg Sony never developed their CRT tech after late 90s, and put all focus on LCDs, because it just was assumed to be the future. All done years before LCDs were even on the market. It was a self fulfilling prophecy.
There was also the promise of OLEDs, plasmas, SEDs and such very early on, but it took 2 fucking decades to get any of that technology to the desktop. And it still sucks. But back then it looked like the future was flat in any scenario.
Tubes could have absolutely survived and competed with LCDs in some professional/enthusiast niches, with our current hindsight. Imagine just what CRTs could become with modern tech like quantum dots too. The fact some 25 year old tubes still unironically compete with brand new monitors is kind of absurd.

>>105988010
>>105976829

>>105988124
Screens can't suck light out of reality, you do need to get any screen to a decent angle to not get that (but arguably OLED is easier to do so).
LCDs/LEDs, at least the cheap ones on the other hand are ALWAYS emitting some light at a point the "black" is actually some sort of grayish shit.
My main LCD screen has this very funny "cope mode" where when it detects the screen is fully black, it turns off the backlights.

>>105975501 (OP)
The answer is self evident to anyone who ever actually used a CRT.

>>105988165
>Screens can't suck light out of reality
No, but they CAN reflect more or less of it back. CRTs just happen to reflect A LOT of light back, so they look grey instead of black. OLED and LCD screens on the other hand reflect far less light back, so they do look black even in a lit room.

>>105988165
better to ignore posts like that, they're not in it to be informed.

>>105988192
>CRTs just happen to reflect A LOT of light back
That depends entirely on the CRT and it's coating

Higher end CRTs had perfectly serviceable black levels even under moderate light.

>>105988197
i still remember the one and only time i watched a movie from a CRT projector. it was on a ferry from wellington to picton (new zealand) in 2002, i watched the movie was cats & dogs (2001)

>>105988357
nice.
playing dark souls 3 atm on 100" 'crt'.

>>105988276
and higher end current gen monitors have even better blacks

>>105988402
i'm not sure if i've considered obtaining a crt projector myself, it sounds like a nice idea, like i know black and white crt's have really sharp pictures because they don't have a colour mask. as a kid i had a little 4.5" b/w portable tv, and i could play psx games on it and they looked arguably as sharp if not sharper than my 14" bedroom tv. a crt projector wouldn't need a colour mask, so i imagine it'd be as sharp as a b/w crt, as each colour is basically a filtered b/w tube

>>105988440
Only OLEDs

>>105988442
i drive this one pretty hard so it's not that sharp.
though it's only visible on small text (like windows explorer). on movies or games this is basically a non-issue.

one thing you have to consider is that these things are heavy and loud. so unless you're willing to do some modding and create a hushbox, don't bother.

they also don't have any 'zoom' function so you're stuck at a set distance from the screen.

many disadvantages, but once you have one setup just the way you want, gaming on anything else is a drop off a cliff.

>>105988675
yea, none of that surprises me. i would expect a truly "raw" projector experience from one. idk, maybe i'll look into it. i don't really remember specific details of the picture from when i saw one, i was young and it was also quite a long time ago, i just remember looking back and seeing those 3 glowing circles
>heavy and loud
yep, that's crt's for you
>many disadvantages, but once you have one setup just the way you want, gaming on anything else is a drop off a cliff.
yep, that's crt's for you

they do what they're good at way better than anything else, lots of downsides, but man there's just no replacement for them

>>105988449
oled becomes purple/grey under daylight