CRTtroons... we lost, it's official. OLED Chuds have bested us in every category, even our made up cope ones like muh motion blur. We will never be a real display technology. We have no HDR, no high resolution output, no color space and no brightness. Everyone thinks we are ugly, bulky and obsolete. Alice and I have made the decision to 41% now that we realized we can't keep up our delusion anymore. I'm sorry to any fellow CRTtroons that had to find out this way.

>>106005104 (OP)
Does OLED do this finally?

>>106005104 (OP)
>We will never be a real display technology. We have no HDR, no high resolution output, no color space and no brightness. Everyone thinks we are ugly, bulky and obsolete
Great news, i was getting sick of people buying and scalping them up. back the dumpster crt chads go (to take them out)

>>106005176
blurring the shit out of the image? yeah that's called cvbs, you can use a converter

>>106005218
So true sister!
>>106005176
No, of course not! This useless effect will be our last sta -ACK!

i have both so it doesnt matter to me

also mental illness thread made by a matrixcord clique

>>106005248
It's a conspiracy! Stay safe CRTsisters, don't fall for the OLED Chud's propaganda. We are a valid display technology!

I feel like if CRTs were really that great then somebody would be manufacturing them even if it was just to dominate the enthusiast market.

>>106005248
>>106005176
>>106005306

>>106005312
I'm sorry this is happening to you anon I hope you get better

>>106005306
They are a bitch to manufacture and have literally no purpose aside from running up your electric bill and cosplaying as LAIN like a faggot. Also half your customers end up killing themselves each year so it's hard to keep a steady income that way.
>>106005312
kek, saved

>>106005306
The problem is the market for autists who want to play old NES games on a CRT doesn't support/scale with production costs. Another issue is companies renew trademark/IP on even 20 year old CRT tech so it's very hard for someone random person to even invest in a startup because you'd have to pay the kike tax just to make them with the best ways or litigate the issue. It would take someone who just wants to make the things and lose money on it. Not even kickstarter low 6 figure money would be enough, 7-8 figure 40 year old manchild son of a rich man money because of all of the permits and infrastructure needed.

>>106005448
>NES
Anon I'm talking more about monitors. If the motion clarity is that great, then obviously every competitive video game player would want a brand new CRT monitor, right?

>>106005448
also doesn't help that that entire market, for the most part is filled with people who already have them. So they aren't exactly going to be enthusiastic to go out and buy a 20" crt tv for $800 or whatever horrible number they would require for crt monitors

>>106005104 (OP)
>>106005176

>>106005478
>ompetitive video game player would want a brand new CRT monitor, right?
genuinely e sport pros by the insane majority are some of lowest iq retards on the planet, fps gamers who this actually implies to the most. I was semi pro lvl on 1 of the bigger titles and people there will go out and buy 500hz monitors for league of legends that might as well hard cap at 144hz or 240hz because of how horrible it runs, cs included. You could literally sell anything to those people and the giant video game audience if you marketed it enough, why do you think there are $250 logitech mice that break in 6 months?
You don't need to strawman that arguement to figure out why crts will never see production again

>>106005478
Same point basically for that too. Market is too niche/performance negligible for a real business model. Would take a rich man just wanting to piss away several million dollars. Also another thing is CRT tech would have to be invested in because power usage would probably make them illegal to sell in some states.

>>106005502
probably PC equivalent of audiophiles

>>106005104 (OP)
Good luck outputting 500fps. Also those monitors are very expensive and since they're OLED they can end up with a permanent ghost if you aren't careful.

>>106005491
im new to this board what am i looking at here

>>106005541
I'm didn't post that but it's a conversion from 16:9 LED screen to 4:3 CRT.

>>106005535
>Good luck outputting 500fps
You don't need to output 500fps to achieve the same "motion clarity" as a CRT. The CRT's motion clarity comes from not displaying a full frame between refreshes. Which is part of why CRTs have such awful brightness, because perceived brightness is the average luminance over some perception period. That is to say, most of what a CRT actually displays is a black screen, which is what is responsible for the so called "motion clarity." It's just a cheap way to decrease frame persistence. All you need to do to replicate this effect is black frame insertion. And if you don't like BFI you can simulate the exact line scanning of a CRT if you have a fast enough refresh rate, which 500hz is already more than enough for that.
>>106005552
He added a tranny filter to the image.

*meant for 106005541

>>106005104 (OP)
Cool. Now I can have my super smooth frames burned into my screen for all eternity. No more blur burn ins for me! Only high quality, smooth burn ins.

>>106005644
That's not exactly true but I get what you mean. CRT actually fade away frames, while LCD keep it persistent, so the eye in CRT thinks "where is it going?" and looks fast. With LCD "it's still there so not that fast" and results in motion blur. With BFI it's sort of the same trick as CRT but it doesn't fade out, it disappears, and we interpret as "where did it go?".

About 500hz, I don't see the advantage of you can't output 500fps. BFI or not, isn't it going to be the same thing as 60hz if you can only output 60fps? I'd say so.

>>106006019
>CRT actually fade away frames, while LCD keep it persistent
Yes, that is what I meant by "not displaying a full frame between refreshes." It never displays a full frame such that a single frame from a high speed camera would show the display fully painted. It will only show the current active line.
>I don't see the advantage of you can't output 500fps. BFI or not, isn't it going to be the same thing as 60hz if you can only output 60fps?
The point is that it kills the last CRTranny cope about muh motion clarity. If you say that is useless, sure, but then it was always useless and was never a real advantage for CRTs.
>BFI or not
If you use BFI it will look more clear when you run the UFOtranny test on it, so there's that.

>>106005176
OLEDsisters, we could never...

Where can you buy an OLED display that has 4:3 aspect ratio and with VGA input that syncs to a new preset mode under 1 second without ridiculous "auto setting" faggotry that always fails?

>>106005312
the type of person to use a CRT would be the type of person to have images like this saved.

>>106005104 (OP)
i'm smashing that "kill everyone who posts in this style" button

>>106006178
The only person you will be killing is yourself, CRTranny.

until oled becomes cheap ill keep using my 1024x768@160hz crt i paid 20 bucks for

>>106005104 (OP)
>1000Hz OLED gives near-CRT motion quality
Great! Where can I buy one?

>>106006174
>the type of person who is being made fun of for something would have images saved making fun of them
??????

>>106005104 (OP)
is this the daily OLEDfag circlejerk thread?

>>106006502
>>106009001
>>106007177

>>106005104 (OP)
>display with an expiration date and burn in
>LEDs with shitty blue light spectrum out the ass, instead of warm and pleasant phosphor glow
no.

>>106005242
is this supposed to be a good example? this screenshot looks like horse shit.

>>106009172
It's a single frame, you can't judge it by that

>>106006173
Outside of the super early monitors that were practically fixed scan frequency designed for DOS machines, CRTs went digital super early. The switching time for a Sony was LOOONG. And even cheap office CRTs would go clunk-click-clunk on mode changes as the internal logic decided what the right values to send to the tube were while you looked at a black screen and waited for shit to appear.
I was doing DOS SVGA demo coding in the mid-90s, I was mode switching every few minutes to test changes. I can tell you about the suffering at length.

>>106005104 (OP)
Are you retarded? Your picture still clearly shows the OLED output being horizontally blurred. CRTs simply do not do this period, as you can see here in this photo I took on my phone with the shutter speed roughly synchronized to the refresh rate of the monitor unlike your photo.

>>106005104 (OP)
>CRTtroons... we lost, it's official. OLED Chuds have bested us in every category, even our made up cope ones like muh motion blur.
You need 500hz to do something a CRT can do at 60hz.

Tell me, how many games can you run at 500fps?
Now consider, that virtually every single 2d game ever made is functionally 60fps locked. A cathode ray tube is STILL the only technology capable of displaying these games without motion blur.

>>106005242
Stop posting this crap, it's no better than any other software BFI solution, besides flickering less. It's an incremental improvement that for some reason anons here think is revolutionary.

>>106010028
>>106005104 (OP)
>You need 500hz to do something a CRT can do at 60hz.
And it's STILL WORSE than a CRT!!
Also, this is at the 960px/s scrolling speed. If you were to increase the scroll speed to 1920px/s the motion blur on the OLED would double, while the CRT still would look perfectly clear.

>>106009940
>retarded CRTtroon doesn't know how to upload a photo
>retarded CRTtroon thinks phosphor decay trailing is just due to "shutter speed"
sasuga deluded CRTtranny denying reality once again.

>>106005104 (OP)
OP is a clueless retard. That FW900 photo is taken wrong. Your camera is obviously stationary, when it's supposed to be tracking the motion.
https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera/
Please read the instructions of the fucking test before you post here ever again.

>>106010028
Stop posting this crap, it's no better than any other software BFI solution, besides flickering less.
Absolute retard that doesn't understand where his supposed CRT "motion clarity" actually comes from.
>>106010041
>Cherrypicks bright background where his phosphor decay isn't visible
You sure showed those Chuds sister! CRTs forever!!
>If you were to increase the scroll speed to 1920px/s
CRTs can't even display 1920 width resolution at reasonable refresh rates to begin with (120hz)
>>106010084
It's fake!! It has to be!
AHAHAHAHA Gonna cry, tranny? One of your own kind made this video and it is not stationary. You lost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYWEusWNgio

>>106005644
>And if you don't like BFI you can simulate the exact line scanning of a CRT if you have a fast enough refresh rate, which 500hz is already more than enough for that.
The monitor in OP is 300 nits. If you wanted to display 60hz content at that 500hz clarity level, you'd need to run the monitor at 480hz, and only display content every 8 frames. Which by your own logic, would decrease the brightness of that monitor to 1/8th what it can do usually.
And 1/8th of 300 nits is 37.5 nits. That's pathetic even compared to CRTs. And your motion clarity would still be observably worse than on a CRT.
This is what has always been the bottleneck with OLED motion clarity. They're just not bright enough.

>>106010169
>Absolute retard that doesn't understand where his supposed CRT "motion clarity" actually comes from.
Explain to me, how can you reduce frame persistence to something less than the displays maximum refresh rate, using mere software filters?
You can not.
>Cherrypicks bright background where his phosphor decay isn't visible
It's not a real issue. Picrel.
>CRTs can't even display 1920 width resolution at reasonable refresh rates to begin with (120hz)
My CRT can absolutely display 1920x1080 at 120hz. It's 138khz hsync by GTF timings, and the best CRT monitors topped out at around 140khz.
>It's fake!! It has to be!
Yeah the lack of tracking stripes still invalidates it, and it appears to be taken with exposure times too short. The exposure needs to capture at least 4 frames of the display into a single frame of video, which does not appear to be the case here.
The phosphor trail does not appear as a sharp ghost in tracked motion to human eyes, or correctly set up cameras. It looks like a continuous smear, like in picrel.
It still absolutely is a test done in an invalid way, and should not be used for anything.

>>106009721
Even on slowest CRT's mode changes are blazing fast compared to any flat panel. Don't know particularly about Sony, but almost all of the mid 90's to the end of the era low end to upper middle end CRT's I've used have been quick enough to sync when mode switching. And regarding flat panels, ironically some of the oldest TFT's I've used have been the best in that regard, and most importantly unlike the newer ones, they do have actual mode preset memory and do not do the full on auto setting faggotry on every mode switch that almost always results part of the image being off screen if the whole screen isn't lit up to edges when it happens.

>>106010221
You only "need" to strobe the display when there are no new frames. Otherwise you can flash the entire new frame at once and then start strobing. So it would actually be brighter. Also if we limit our screen size to that of those tiny CRT displays we could easily get more nits. And there are brighter OLEDS now anyway.
>>106010306
>not a real issue
>shows image that still displays the issue
Are you blind? You can see the phosphor decay in all the dark background images.
>The phosphor trail does not appear as a sharp ghost in tracked motion to human eyes, or correctly set up cameras. It looks like a continuous smear, like in picrel.
Wrong, that's just because your camera's frame rate is too slow. If you have a high frame rate camera and run the test you will see it's not actually smearing, it's exactly what the freeze frame from the video shows. Show me a single slow motion video of the UFO test on a CRT that does not have this. Also funny how you went from being certain that the camera was stationary to now making up random shit that you know nothing about. Anyone who knows anything about displays would immediately realize that the OP pic can't be from a stationary camera. You're just grasping at straws now.
>My CRT can absolutely display 1920x1080 at 120hz. It's 138khz hsync by GTF timings, and the best CRT monitors topped out at around 140khz.
Ok, you win the tracked UFO better than OLED at 2000px/s (with phosphor glow) award. And 1000hz OLEDs are releasing soon (100hz LCD already exist) so be prepared to ACK then when your last cope is gone.

>>106010468
>1000hz
good luck getting anything to run at that

>>106010468
>Are you blind? You can see the phosphor decay in all the dark background images.
And? It's still infinitely better than what OLED can offer.
>Wrong,
That's what it looks like to human eyes. I have a CRT in front of me right now.
>that's just because your camera's frame rate is too slow.
What the fuck does it matter what a high speed camera sees?
> If you have a high frame rate camera and run the test you will see it's not actually smearing,
Do you understand sample&hold motion blur at all? It doesn't matter what it actually is, in motion it looks like a continuous blur, due to exactly the same effect as sample&hold blur.
>from being certain that the camera was stationary to now making up random shit that you know nothing about.
>Anyone who knows anything about displays would immediately realize that the OP pic can't be from a stationary camera.
A camera with a high shutter speed is indistinguishable from a stationary camera. And both are invalid to use in this test, as they do not simulate human perception.
Either way, that test is objectively invalid.
>so be prepared to ACK then when your last cope is gone.
Literally no games I play run even at 200fps, let alone 500fps or 1000fps. Most of my games are 60hz locked. This is all completely irrelevant "bigger number better" goyslop marketing garbage, shit that will never replace a CRT.
>You only "need" to strobe the display when there are no new frames. Otherwise you can flash the entire new frame at once and then start strobing.
I don't really understand what the hell you're talking about here, but just know, repeatedly strobing the same frame will cause motion blur. If your content is 60fps, you cannot strobe at anything above 60hz.

>>106005312
>trinitroon

>>106010815
>And? It's still infinitely better than what OLED can offer.
Maybe when you compare it to the 60hz OLED in your pic.
>What the fuck does it matter what a high speed camera sees?
>The Camera is set up wrong!!!
>A-actually, it doesn't matter what the camera shows
>in motion it looks like a continuous blur
Yes, it is blurry whereas the OLED is perfectly accurate as it does not use trannytubes. The point of the image is to show what causes the blur, which is the ghosting caused by the phosphor decay. It literally says 12% speed right in the image. And you can see a clear outline even at 50% speed in the video.
>A camera with a high shutter speed is indistinguishable from a stationary camera
Are you retarded?
>Literally no games I play run even at 200fps, let alone 500fps or 1000fps
>I don't really understand what the hell you're talking about here, but just know, repeatedly strobing the same frame will cause motion blur. If your content is 60fps, you cannot strobe at anything above 60hz.
Holy shit, I'm arguing with a literal drooling retard. Strobing the same frame is exactly what CRTs are doing, that is how it "reduces" frame persistence, by just showing nothing for line_count-1/line_count subframes in each frame. You don't even understand your own trannytech. As I mentioned, you can do this with an OLED as well, either with BFI or strobing methods that are similar to CRTs. Which is why you don't need 500fps to get better motion clarity from a 500hz monitor.

>>106011160
> As I mentioned, you can do this with an OLED as well, either with BFI or strobing methods that are similar to CRTs. Which is why you don't need 500fps to get better motion clarity from a 500hz monitor.
But OLEDs aren't bright enough for that >>106010221
>The point of the image is to show what causes the blur,
It's still absolutely retard and straight up malicious to use what are practically different tests with apples-to-oranges results in what is assumed to be a comparison between two technologies. CRTs do not look like what the pic on OP implies.

>>106011262
>But OLEDs aren't bright enough for that
They literally are. BFI already exists. And stobing methods already exist and are shipped by OLED companies. You're just a retard.
>straight up malicious
Cry about it tranny
>apples-to-oranges results
The OLED has no such blur. If you use a high speed camera you will not get anything like the CRT ghosting shown in the pic. Prove me wrong.

>>106011816
>BFI already exists.
And it's garbage
Here's what the best BFI implementation looks like at *120* hz.
They just can't make it better because of the brightness limitations of OLEDs.
I fucking wish we had technology that could replicate what CRTs could do, but we simply do not.

>>106005176
unironically yes

CRTsissies... are we... obsolete...

>>106009172
imbecile

>>106009172
because it's made to look like CRT

>>106011874
>best BFI implementation
Retard. BFI is a dead simple algorithm. There is no "best implementation." And there are other motion clarity techniques that are not BFI that are better. So when you say "best BFI implementation" it means nothing because BFI isn't even the best technique currently used by display manufacturers.
>at *120* hz.
OLED can do 500hz, why do you show 120hz?
>They just can't make it better because of the brightness limitations of OLEDs.
Source for this retarded claim?
>I fucking wish we had technology that could replicate what CRTs could do
No you don't because then you would have to 41%, which is why you are pretending that your arguments make any sense.

>>106012007
WOW! Which CRT is this sister? The colors are so crisp!

>>106005104 (OP)
I tried BFI at 240Hz on several different monitors and it does not look anywhere near as good as that picture is suggesting

>>106012196
sister.. unfortunately... that's actually an LG OLED TV...

I still don't understand how technology from the fucking 50's can be faster than today
Like why can't they just make the pixels light up the same way the electron gun lights up the phosphor screen

>>106014095
well because electron beams are faster than fucking electric signals? crt seems much easier technology compared with material science/nanotech required for lcd screens

>>106014095
They could but they don't want to.

>>106012183
>There is no "best implementation."
That is the best built-in "hardware" BFI OLED displays have ever had, as far as we know.
You're free to show us a better implementation.
>And there are other motion clarity techniques that are not BFI that are better
Such as?
>why do you show 120hz?
Because that's what that display could do. 60hz and 120hz BFI both with ~3.5ms persistence*, with 60hz being just barely bright enough to use from what I've been told.
*Source: rtings
>Source for this retarded claim?
Simple math >>106010221 and all existing BFI implementations, such as the one on the LG CX. The last OLED TV to even have functional BFI.
>No you don't because then you would have to 41%, which is why you are pretending that your arguments make any sense.
Seethe more faggot. Show me an OLED doing 60hz with similar clarity to a CRT. And then tell me how bright it is.
You cannot find one example. Such a thing doesn't exist. It's not possible to do with today's tech. It's just not.

>>106005242
Didn't they say that the monitor needs like 540 Hz to achieve the best effect?
And guess what? TN panel only :p.

>>106014141
Yeah it's just standard shitty software BFI but it ~rolls~ so it flickers bit less. Still as blurry as any other software BFI filter. So fucking revolutionary

>>106005104 (OP)
. You need at least a 22400x16800 monitor to display a miserly 640x350 vga image with proper integer aspect ratio correction.

. Inferior multisync capabilities (particularly for refresh rates unde 60hz)

. No individual pixel timing = no light pen support.

. Delay.

. No round pixels that smooth out edges naturally, which's particularly important for legacy fonts.

. Aspect ratio optimized for overall field of view rather than fovea, thus retarded and wasteful.

It may be over as far as color reproduction is concerned, but that's about it.

>>106014139
>Seethe more faggot. Show me an OLED doing 60hz with similar clarity to a CRT. And then tell me how bright it is.
>You cannot find one example. Such a thing doesn't exist. It's not possible to do with today's tech. It's just not.

Not my conversation, but the clarity issue here is related to blanking, which can be essily simulated by doubling the refresh rate and intercalating black frames.

>>106014389
Not that easy >>106010221

>>106005176
Yeah, you can just turn on filters that do that.

>>106014416
My bad. I think I had Crystal LED in mind when I wrote that. That shit's super bright.

>>106014095
analog devices don't process most thing. they just show or do things at fixed rates.

>ULMB

may i buy them

>>106005104 (OP)
wrong.
if only the tech was already on par with crt.

get a dlp projector if you need the closest to crt performance.