Why did we stop using CRT monitors?

>>11885106 (OP)
spensive

we are dumb apes

>>11885106 (OP)
We didn't. I still use them. You never did. Where is this "stop" you speak of?

>>11885106 (OP)
because customers preferred the new flat screens, once the economies of scale brought down the cost of flat monitors, there was no way even the cheapest CRTs could even compete

>>11885106 (OP)
too heavy

>>11885106 (OP)
They were massive even for 21" and buzzed

>>11885106 (OP)
Stopped making them.
Once everyone had CRTs in their homes - flat panels for reduced electricity usage and manufacturing, shipping cost, electroconstriction noise, burn-in, handling for businesses made LCDs boom. With corporations adopting LCDs manufacturing for CRTs dwindled since people already had them and the tech for improving them was locked up from IP trolls with SED/FED which would be superior today comparable to OLED but cheaper - but still cost more than LCD and the writing was on the wall.
You want innovation, you can't trust capital.
Money determines what happens not quality or interest.
LCDs are starting to get decent but not all of them.... until some cheap improvements are developed, you're stuck in this shit... if all you care about is some text on the screen occasionally and high res images - LCDs are are basically perfect for that. If you want good color, or temporal image quality, or scrolling text... that's a different story.
Likewise, with AI rotting the brains of corporations into "high frequency disinformation/opinions", they will forever still spout garbage that LCDs are great. So... yeah, until China gets in the game, it's unlikely to advance all that quickly.

Apart from gaming if you are an autist, there isn't any benefit to them over flat panels

>>11885106 (OP)
We?

They're huge
They're heavy
They're expensive to produce in larger sizes
They use a lot of power
They're difficult to mount on surfaces or overhead
Were intended for analog signals when everything is moving over to digital
Have dangerous high-voltage components inside
The tube if it ever cracks can implode
It starts to become extremely difficult and expensive to make them larger than 25-30 inches
They are going to be heavy as all hell at that size
The Sony PVM-4300, the largest CRT mass produced, cost $40000, weighed 400 pounds, ...and was only 45 inches


Modern LCD/LED screens are barely an inch thick
Are significantly lighter
Use significantly less power
Can easily be produced at absurd sizes
Can be made cheap even at larger sizes
Are better suited for digital signals
Nothing dangerous happens if the screen itself gets cracked
Are no more dangerous than a DVD player inside

The only benefits CRTs have are when retro consoles took advantage of their FAULTS to do things like blur closeby pixels together to transparency effects or produce more colors (and even that was mostly the low quality signal from the RCA or composite cable doing the work, not the CRT itself), took advantage of the quirks of how it draws an image to make lightguns, and took advantage of it's analog nature for reduced latency (which a good upscaler can nearly match these days anyway)

Vast majority of people are not retro gamers, and of the ones who are even less care about the difference between authentic hardware on a real CRT vs connecting a Pi with Retroarch to their 4K HDTV. It's no surprise why we stopped making them years ago.

>>11885106 (OP)

Heavier
Less reliable
More expensive to produce
If using HD media, the picture does look sharper (better is very subjective) and at the time that was seen as very exciting

Also - my low stakes conspiracy:
When they do break, LCDs are expensive to repair, but cheap to buy, so you have an endless stream of custom

>>11885152
>LCDs are expensive to repair, but cheap to buy
How so? For both CRTs and LCDs if the screen breaks, it's impossible to repair and can only be replaced, which indeed can be expensive, as much as just getting a new set.

If anything else breaks though, LCDs are generally much cheaper and simpler to repair. They generally just have two or three small circuit boards inside, the power supply, the main board, an sometimes an inverter. If you aren't skilled in replacing components you can just replace the entire board, which usually IS much cheaper than buying a new set, if you are skilled in soldering then it's even significantly cheaper still to replace that component if you can tell what was damaged.

CRTs can be a mess of components inside, and can be dangerous to open up, and many times are one huge piece so you generally can't replace just the broken board as it's all one huge part.

Because a strictly better alternative became available.

What is this image meant to convey? Which one are you saying looks better?

>>11885106 (OP)
What is this comparison attempting to show? Did you run the Wii and PS3 versions on a CRT to show that the PS3 version looks better?

Apparently 720 CRTs actually have lag, which means that CRTs in and of themselves don't resolve the lag issue and the notion that you can get an LCD to respond fast enough to get input-accurate response isn't impossible.

>>11885106 (OP)
Cause they're shit for movies and broadcasts, which are the main reasons for owning a TV in the first place.

>>11885106 (OP)
Soul and soulless

>>11885478
People use their phones for both things though.

>shit for movies
Dude if you've not watched a movie on a CRT then you've missed out.

>Why did we stop using horses as a transportation method?

>>11885490
I've owned cheap-shit TVs in the past and had a whole shelf of VHS tapes to watch on them. They looked terrible compared to Blurays. Don't start this meme with me.

>>11885464
It's the GCN version (in stretched widescreen) being compared to the HD version (played on a CRT) that OP (auster) took from another RE4 thread where somebody posted the same photo to demonstrate GCN's superior lighting capabilities over later releases. You're supposed to think the bottom version is the PS2 release or something, I don't know. Just let the sub-60 IQs get mad and enjoy.

>>11885460
This. The top is way more vibrant, but the contrast is obviously way up. For me, I prefer the 'black dots in between the color dots' kind of screen, not pictured.

>>11885164
>If anything else breaks though, LCDs are generally much cheaper and simpler to repair. They generally just have two or three small circuit boards inside, the power supply, the main board, an sometimes an inverter. If you aren't skilled in replacing components you can just replace the entire board, which usually IS much cheaper than buying a new set, if you are skilled in soldering then it's even significantly cheaper still to replace that component if you can tell what was damaged.
This. Even a brainlet like me who can't solder fixed my 10 year old LCD first by replacing the T-Con board and then when the individual lights started dying, by replacing the LED strips

Customers got tired of the true blacks reminding them of the darkness in their souls and so demanded an inferior colour contrast with lighter black levels.

>>11885493
>Magnetic tape looks terrible compared to the 1080p technology developed years later
No shit nignog, there were other formats made for CRT TVs.

>>11885505
Yeah, DVDs - which look better on plasmas and LCDs as well.

>>11885513
DVDs look like shit compared to VHS

CRTs weight 50KG for one. Flat panels are superior - this is not up for debate. Of course they still have room for improvement, and they are improving, alot. We would be retarded to go back to CRTs

>>11885467
PC CRT monitors could do much higher than 720p and never had lag. The input lag on HD CRT TVs is just some kind of retarded design flaw. Not necessarily something inherent to higher resolution on CRTs

>>11885526
No one actually thinks this. That's like saying having blurry eyesight is superior to 20/20

>>11885106 (OP)
Soul vs Soulless

>>11885150
You're speaking the obvious to retards who do not care and are likely comparing cheap shitty lcds or leds to high end/late crt tvs or computer monitors, both of which look significantly better than most crts especially the ones they (presumably) saw as kids.

>>11885130
>once the economies of scale brought down the cost of flat monitors
LCD TVs were cheaper to produce since their inception anon, that is why manufacturers push them so hard.

industry>>>consumers in driving tech and lcd displays are superior for static text based office tasks. better text clarity, no needless flicker giving people migraines. an office worker can tank staring at an lcd for 8 hours like nothing, not even the hint of a headache.
consumers preferring the decreased space and the sleekness of flat panels was a secondary thing, lcd's were going to become the default whether or not consumers preferred them over crts for home media.

>>11885106 (OP)
Maybe it's different in my area or I just didn't go to the store at the right time, but I don't recall ever seeing an honest side by side comparison set up anywhere. There was also a prevailing mindset among consumers at the timd that newer and smaller always means more advanced, so 99% of people didn't think twice about buying a newer TV. CRTs are still superior for motion clarity since barely any monitors support BFI, and even when they do it doesn't give results as good as uaing a CRT

>>11885106 (OP)
Because THEY stopped selling them to us =(

>>11885536
You are trading some clarity in the image for a shitload of other things, including the flavor of the actual medium itself.
2001 a Space Odyssey or Psycho compared to modern movies or tv made with state of the art tech. Which has a more beautiful image and which has a cold, dry image they try to make up for with flashing lights and bullshit. Soundtracks from PS made with a PCM synth or modern uncompressed sample libraries. Which sounds stand out to you more?

>>11885581
>newer and smaller always means more advanced
People only liked small things due to convenience but for TVs the trend has always been bigger = better, so much that early flat panels came out with larger screens than the usual CRTs.

>>11885610
>flavor of the actual medium itself
bait used to be believable

>>11885135
Just a splash over four plate. Any real man can dead that, np. What are ya mates for anyway?

>>11885610
that has nothing to do with VHS being inferior to DVD. 2001 Space Odyssey looks terrible on VHS

>>11885536
NTA but first generation of DVDs were pretty bad, hell even later ones don't hold up as much.

>>11885683
that's not what he meant, he's making an analogy that CRT vs LCD is what Space Odyssey is vs modern films

>>11885632
>Le bait
Guitarists still record their tracks to tape THEN send it to digital for a reason. People still run samples through stuff like a Fairlight for a reason. Shaders and other shit exist for a reason.
>>11885683
And looks even worse on DVD. Theatres still use projectors for a reason.
>>11885687
Yes, going back to DVD now is an eye-opener. For another example, watch Braveheart or Barry Lyndon on Blu-Ray then watch it on VHS. Which has the better ambience and color?

>>11885701
do they call you retarded on /tv/?

>>11885696
Thank you.
For other examples. Listen to the drums on Sgt. Peppers then go listen to modern drum recordings. Go look at pre-rendered backgrounds from FF7 then compare them to the emvironments from FF16,,which are more memorable? Go look at some old photography then go look at award winning current shots. Just play an old game on CRT then play it on a modern tv. The evidence is so glaring that it is a wonder how people don't just stop and say wtf is going on and why am I paying out the ass for shit inferior to that of decades ago.

>>11885707
I don't go on other boards or other sites and only came back here a day ago after a long while away to look for games to introduce young family members to and inevitably got sucked into replying to some things as I am actually passionate about some things. If you have a point to make, muster up the courage to make it rather than rhetoric ad hominem nonsense.

Top has nice colours. If it was rendered st the same resolution as bottom it would be best.

>>11885140
Surely modern technology could develop an electeon gun at 80% less weight and size and with no noise. They could do it if they wanted to.

>>11885130
we would get that with SED screens, but again guess the lobby behind LCD screens.

>>11885106 (OP)
kinda stupid to use 2 different ports of the same game to compare screens

>>11885106 (OP)
A lot of you people here severely underestimate just how much the average person fucking hates CRTs
It took less than half a decade to go from "The vast majority of new TVs sold are CRTs" to "CRTs are no longer sold at retail"
I was personally a poverty-stricken dumpster diver back in the early 2010's and I'd regularly find 34" widescreen Trinitron sets in the trash. Everyone who owned one chucked it out as soon as they managed to get their hands on a flat panel.

>>11885701
Explain how VHS is better than DVD objectively without a bunch of word salad. (you can't)

>>11885696
And what the fuck does that have to do with VHS vs DVD? That's a completely nonsense analogy. Something being older doesn't mean it's better automatically. That's dumb as fuck

>>11885701
>Guitarists still record their tracks to tape THEN send it to digital for a reason
kek they aren't using VHS

>>11885701
>Yes, going back to DVD now is an eye-opener. For another example, watch Braveheart or Barry Lyndon on Blu-Ray then watch it on VHS. Which has the better ambience and color?
DVD and bluray for the most part. It mostly depends on the mastering of the DVD and what your playback device is. Newer masters being upscaled by a bluray player arguably look better than Netfix's low bitrate 1080p, as the black levels look better on the DVD and the audio quality is about the same. A lot of early DVDs look like shit because a lot of them were poor quality laserdisc transfers just to rush something out to market without having to strike up a new master. The real reason to collect VHS is for 4:3 aspect ratio movies that were shot on Super 35, as they have more picture information than the Widescreen versions, and some of those weren't ever released on DVD like Terminator 2. Another thing is how on DVD and bluray, almost every film from the 80's and 90's have had the audio remixed, and it's not theatrically accurate. So autistic audio mix people collect laserdisc and VHS as a result. Shitty capture cards and composite make VHS captures look worse than VHS can actually look, but S-VHS machines are really hard to get your hands on, and if you don't have a 4 head machine, you miss out on Dolby Hi-Fi.

>>11885106 (OP)
>we

>>11885106 (OP)
nice emulator on 4x upscale

>>11885816
>The real reason to collect VHS is for 4:3 aspect ratio movies that were shot on Super 35, as they have more picture information than the Widescreen versions, and some of those weren't ever released on DVD like Terminator 2.
Is there a list of these anywhere? I've collected open matte DVDs for years.

My dads rich friend had a 36" widescreen CRT in the late 90s, it took 3 people to carry it.

when you could get 50" LCD/plasma that weighed much less it's no wonder people jumped on them.

>>11885490
>Dude if you've not watched a movie on a CRT then you've missed out.
NTA but I've watched movies on CRTs for 25 years, I don't miss that at all.

>>11885492
>>Why did we stop using horses as a transportation method?
Funny thing is I have seen people actually argue "We used to have cars with GPS and automatic self-driving that could get you home even if you fell asleep, we called them horses" or something along those lines. I recall an archive of old article I read when cars were still new trying to list all the pros of horses and cons of cars and insisting they were a fad that would not last. The more things change the most they stay the same I guess.

... screw everything going to digital/streaming though. Especially streaming.

>>11885526
>DVDs look like shit compared to VHS
You HAVE to be trolling at this point

>>11885571
>LCD TVs were cheaper to produce since their inception anon, that is why manufacturers push them so hard.
I would assume that even if they cost a bit more, don't forget that TVs are physical products so they have to be shipped to stores and then brought into people's homes. Imaging the cost of shipping two dozen 30 inch CRTs vs two dozen 30 inch LCDs. That alone would be significant savings even if the LCDs cost a bit more to produce.

>>11885573
>lcd's were going to become the default whether or not consumers preferred them over crts for home media
You are never going to sell a product if consumers don't want it, doesn't matter how hard you push it. Look at how hard Microsoft is pushing Xbox marketing but the brand is basically dead compared to Sony.

>>11885581
Hell, we can't even get honest side-by-sides of LCDs today, they always jack up the color and contrast levels to excessive amounts to make them catch people's eyes.

>>11885889
>I've collected open matte DVDs for years
Based knower.
I don't know, but if a film was shot on Super 35 and it has a 4:3 release, it's a pretty safe bet that it's open matte. Closest I've found is a few odd forum posts and this imdb list.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls555925907/

>>11885106 (OP)
whos we

>>11885956 me
>>11885889
Found another link for you that's much better.
https://blog.sporv.com/open-matte-master-list/

>>11885629
>People only liked small things due to convenience but for TVs the trend has always been bigger = better
This, look at sitcoms from before LCDs that were set in what were then modern times. Chances are there will be an episode where either the main character or their rival wants to get some massive TV. I remember Third Rock from the Sun, Fraiser, and another one I forgot the name of all doing it, and likely many others I did forget. Though these were usually rear-projection since you could not get a CRT that huge, but the whole point was about how desirable massively huge TVs were. Many who had a basement level in their home would make that their entertainment room and put their biggest TV there.

Small TVs were merely seen as a convivence if you needed a small screen somewhere like in the kitchen or the bedroom and seen as inferior to larger sets.

>>11885701
>Guitarists still record their tracks to tape THEN send it to digital for a reason
Yes, reason being oldass equipment. You think many don't use digital only?
>Shaders and other shit exist for a reason.
Yes, the reason being because 30 year old games relied on the flaws of CRTs and RCA/Composite to make effects their hardware could not pull off at the time work and you lose these effects on a high-fidelity connection to a modern TV. Course, around the 5th gen the hardware became powerful enough to just do these effects and thus this was unnecessary anymore. If Sonic was made today those waterfalls would just straight up be a transparent layer, not ribbons of blue streamers to try to trick a CRT over RF to blue it into a semi-transparentish effect that would not look as good as if the hardware could just do transparencies.

>Theatres still use projectors for a reason.
You realize those modern projectors just have the movie playing off a harddrive right? You don't still think that modern movies are projected off of film do you?

>>11885490
>Dude if you've not watched a movie on a CRT then you've missed out
On god my sides. The laughter. It hurts.
>DVDs look like shit compared to VHS
My sides are now in orbit.
CRT resellers will say anything to shift their shit,

>>11885106 (OP)
Simple to stop people making experiments with the electron gun which could generate a huge ammount of power and store it for years.
It wasn't that was obsolete or old it was forced to stop production.

>>11885106 (OP)
Is RE4 on PS2 vs GC? What a difference

>>11885971
I don't really see a VHS list there maybe I'm retarded. Those lists are all weird formats besides DVD or VHS. The list I've used was this https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=335936

>>11885701
>For another example, watch Braveheart or Barry Lyndon on Blu-Ray then watch it on VHS. Which has the better ambience and color?
A shitty transfer is a shitty transfer. This has nothing to do with Blu-Ray being inferior to VHS and everything to do with the company doing the transfer fucking it up or just plain not giving a shit. The same can happen for transferring old film movies to VHS. It's not a VHS is superior to Blu-Ray problem, that's just delusion.

>>11885708
>Go look at pre-rendered backgrounds from FF7 then compare them to the emvironments from FF16,,which are more memorable?

>Which is more memorable, a setting that's fantasy-modern-scifi that was unique at the time for some of the biggest videogames in history to a generic and very commonly seen medieval fantasy setting that has been seen a million times over for an okayish game.

Gee, I wonder. It's almost as if the setting itself is what's more memorable, not this nonsense of old blurry CRT screens being better. Funny how you didn't compare it to the remakes.

>Go look at some old photography then go look at award winning current shots.
I have, the modern photos look so much better, your point?

>Just play an old game on CRT then play it on a modern tv.

>Just play a game where the hardware was too archaic to do what the devs wanted and had to rely on tricks on how blurry CRTs and RCA/Composite connects were to attempt to sort of pull off those visuals.
Yes, those look like shit on modern connections and screens because those are not flawed and able to replicate the rendered image perfectly, your point? Other than the image on those was so shit that devs had to work around it?

You're the kind of person that unironically argues vinyl sounds superior to anything else aren't you?

>>11885719
>Surely modern technology could develop an electeon gun at 80% less weight and size and with no noise. They could do it if they wanted to.
Still would have many of the drawbacks. Uses a lot more power, much larger because you need room for the beam to travel, the majority of the weight of a CRT was the tube which you can't reduce much because you need heavy thick glass to handle the vacuum pressure and put lead in it because of the beam. You can't just ignore physics, it's not possible to make a thin lightweight power efficient CRT that comes anywhere close to rivaling how thin, light, and power efficient LCDs are. Closest would be SED but that was closer to a LCD that used mini-CRTs for it's pixels than a tube that uses a single electron gun so it would still not work as a CRT for most of the reasons people would want one for retro games.

>>11885720
>we would get that with SED screens, but again guess the lobby behind LCD screens.
Oh yeah, sure, that was the reason. Definitely not the fact that it's launch was delayed over and over for a decade due to issues and that Toshiba tried to hold onto exclusivity rights of being the only one allowed to make them while at the same time consumers just simply felt LCDs were good enough. No, clearly it was "Big LCD" and their secret Illuminati mafia.

>>11885735
Pretty much, yea, around 2000-2010 seeing CRTs on the curb was practically a daily occurrence.

>>11885953
>12yo
>I've watched movies on CRTs for 25 years

>>11885992
There isn't but if the LD/CED release has a corresponding VHS release, it's more than likely (though not always in the case of LD, when discs can have identical packaging with one another, but one pressing plant used a different master for whatever reason). Anyway, like I said, I've never been able to find a good list either.

>>11886326
>it's more than likely (though not always in the case of LD, when discs can have identical packaging with one another, but one pressing plant used a different master for whatever reason).
No idea how i fucked that up. Meant
*it's more than likely from the same master

>>11885526
Get the fuck out of here with that bait.

>>11885731
it's the same screen lol

>>11885719
>Surely modern technology
You think "technology" for some basic mechanism like an electron beam has progressed since 2000?

>>11885106 (OP)
size.
same reason i had to put away my crt tv.
:(

>>11886425
I want to buy one of the mini ones, 9" or smaller. It would be so cozy to keep on my desk. I don't know which models have acceptable color resolution though.

>>11885532
Someone should build mini CRT's for enthusiasts

>>11885534
People forget high end CRT's had resolutions like 2560x1920 which is only 240 lines short of 4k

You asked, I'll tell you what I thinkl. I was born in the '80s and significantly prefer LCD or whatever we have now to CRTs. I was very glad to get rid of my CRTs. I play almost exclusively retro and have no problem seeing some jagged edges here and there when it overall looks better with the right settings.
The noise, the static electricity feeling, the fact it made my eyes water. All everyone likes it for now is because the lines "blur imperfections," but I don't personally like it. IMO the modern trend is at least 50% larpers to feel special.

>>11886453
Honestly nothing beats a 2000's 1600x1200 CRT monitor playing emulated SNES games. CRT TV's are dog poop but the computer monitors are classy.

>>11885106 (OP)
Are you a "games/movies were designed for the TVs of their era" crt fan or an "everything including modern things are better on crt" CRT fan

>>11885135
All joking aside, I had like a 32' CRT from about 1997 to sometime in the mid to late 2000's and I had to move like 10 times for college and just the usual bullshit reasons and hoooly fucking shit did it suck to move that thing.

And as for what this zoomer thinks >>11885679, it *would* be very manageable for a fit man if it was just a heavy object and you could pick it up and set it down like a kettlebell or a chair something. But the horror of having to move a large CRT tv is that it's this massive, heavy object that you have to handle with care because despite being this large blunt object it's also alarmingly fragile.

Moving that tv was like doing the boulder lift at a strongman competition except the boulder had sensitive electronic parts inside it and half of it was made of glass. It's a lift you can't bail on and the landing needs to be gentle and precise. After years of that now every time I pick up a flatscreen I feel like the fucking Hulk. A large tv light enough to carry with one hand is something I will never take for granted

Because flat screens are less heavy, and quickly became more energy efficient and sharper, no one besides weird autists really cared about input lag and other shit. I say this as someone who has a big ass consumer s-video trini, a 14 incher professional trini and 8 incher professional trini.
No normalfag is really going back to lugging a fucking behemoth into their living room.

>>11886486
i had a 27" toshiba for a while that was thankfully only about 150lbs and my scrawny 150lbs ass could still move it around
but the real issue with moving them is that all the weight is at the front and they very rarely have built in handles to hold them properly

>>11886497
Pussy

>>11886486
I used to hate that until I realized my (newer) CRT tv has 2 handles for each hand on top, even though it's pretty big (20"). Somehow I had been carrying around my CRT like a retard and stumbling around for 20 years without ever realizing what the handle slots were for.

>>11886436
display manufacturers are so consensus driven and cheap that for a long time it was impossible to find a computer monitor with a non matte clear coating(manufacturers finally started offering some non matte screens on oleds). a relatively cheap undisruptive modification that had some demand was not even entertained.

>>11886256
>I disagree with you, therefore you must be a zoomer!
You need to grow up, most of us did decades ago.

>>11886421
This is another good point, our CRT tech if we were to restart it isn't going to be any better than the early 00s since that's pretty much when we stopped bothering to continue research into it as LCDs were going to replace it soon. We aren't going to suddenly magically know some new improvements we can make just because it's been a while, we would just be continuing from where we left off. Sure, we would be able to put modern electronics and inputs into the sets, but the CRT itself would not have any new improvements, we would have to continue researching new breakthroughs from where we left off.

>>11886425
Same here, not sure if the one I put away even still works anymore. They're just too damn big and heavy. And I am not interested in gaming on some tiny miniature 9-13 inch screen.

>>11886436
Industry isn't there. CRTs are not like a PCB or molded plastic part that you can easily manufacture anywhere or even at home, they require a dedicated factory and supporting factories all of which are long gone. You would need to invest millions if not billions to attempt to build all those back up and restart production, and there is no way in fuck you would even break even much less profit off of that, it's only a tiny niche of a niche that would care.

>>11886441
Never once in any of my posts did I claim CRTs were low-res, because they definitely could be higher. I ran my last CRT monitor at 1024x768. TV signals were just limited to around 480/512 max so CRT TVs rarely had options to go beyond that, though some could be modded for RGB input since the tube itself usually could handle higher resolution. Though with a high-res CRT and high-fidelity connection to it you run into the same issue as modern TVs, you now are no longer replicating most of those tricks retro games used that relied on it being a blurry low-res low-fidelity signal.

>>11886453
>You asked, I'll tell you what I thinkl. I was born in the '80s and significantly prefer LCD or whatever we have now to CRTs.
Same here, other than for retro games being replicated 100% they had essentially no benefits and far far more drawbacks, and most of those benefits a good upscaler can reproduce. The only one you would not be reproducing would be getting light guns working. Though there are some modern replacements for those with various levels of success. If I had a massive house where I could setup a museum of a game room I might consider breaking out the CRT again, but I do not.

>>11886486
Not to mention they are NOT a balanced object either like a barbell or whatever, there is going to be significantly more weight towards the front than the back, many also generally did not have an easy place to grip them anywhere. Even if you can bench press 400 pounds it does not mean you can move a 400 pound TV.

>>11885106 (OP)
Because I couldn't fit three 24" CRTs on my desk because those things were HEAVY and LARGE.
Obviously only a zoomer faggot who wasn't alive when they were still a thing would ask such a dumb question.

>>11885785
I'm not going to waste my time explaining all the details as you obviously have no argument and are just under the assumption that new=better, so just a few points
VHS has different quality levels. The highest quality of VHS is higher than the average DVD, even in clarity.
Audio before DVD or laser was not designed for the way that DVD's would output audio, often resulting in unsaturated, dry audio. DVD has issues such as pixelation, artefacts, etc. There is a limit to how much data, or how much image, is displayed on DVD's. The jump from film to digital camera started with a huge drop in quality. What is lost from a film photo to a 2MP camera?

>>11885789
That's not what is being said at all. The point is that things shoukd improve as time goes on. If something really old is higher quality than something recent, some people might want to understand why, instead of digging their head in the sand.

>>11885795
No, they're using a form of tape even older than VHS.

>>11885106 (OP)
Because they suck

>>11885130
Recall how fuckheavy they were, the largest CRT was like 42 inch. That's basically a modest size now, most people spring for 50+. We even have 70+ inch flatscreens now.

>>11885816
Thanks for the info, but the Barry Lyndon I saw on DVD was terrible quality.

>>11885629
Bigger diagonal would obviously be preferred but I guess I should have said "thinner" instead. I would argue that love for thin electronics continues today with shit like laptop manufacturers removing RAM slots to save a few mm of width

my PVM has been RGB modded is there any way I can use it to hook up to my PC?

>>11885972
>Yes, reason being oldass equipment. You think many don't use digital only?
No... People with all the modern equipment usually end up goIng back and getting tape machines to record guitar. Don't comment if you are just guessing.
>Yes, the reason being because 30 year old games relied on the flaws of CRTs and RCA/Composite to make effects their hardware could not pull off at the time work and you lose these effects on a high-fidelity connection to a modern TV.
So, in other words, older mediums have specific traits and characteristics which don't transfer properly to newer mediums or devices? Yes, we know.
>You realize those modern projectors just have the movie playing off a harddrive right?
Ask yourself why they use a projector instead of a screen.

>>11886708
>Ask yourself why they use a projector instead of a screen.
Because building a 50 foot wide TV screen would be ludicrously expensive?

>>11886708
>No... People with all the modern equipment usually end up goIng back and getting tape machines to record guitar. Don't comment if you are just guessing.
No... people don't use that shit anymore and have been migrating away from it. Don't comment if you are just guessing. Better yet, don't' comment at all.
>So, in other words, older mediums have specific traits and characteristics which don't transfer properly to newer mediums or devices?
No, it's because those older devices could not do better and relied on FLAWS of said mediums, nobody is pining for those flaws. Sonic 1 being remade today would just plain have fucking transparent waterfalls, not the shredded-paper-streamers that they were hoping the flaws of a CRT, not benefits, FLAWS, would blur away.
>Ask yourself why they use a projector instead of a screen
Ask yourself why they no longer use film if old media is so unapproachably better

>>11886731
>Because building a 50 foot wide TV screen would be ludicrously expensive?
You're trying to use logic against someone illogical. There are plenty of reasons, the very one you just stated, easier repairs and replacements, how such a screen would burn out displaying movies nearly 24/7 since TVs are not meant to be on for that long every day, etc but all he will see is "So you're saying it's better because it's older!" even though there is nothing old fashioned whatever about modern movie projectors.

>>11886824
>Ask yourself why they no longer use film if old media is so unapproachably better
Not him but plenty of movies are still shot on 35mm instead of digital cameras.

>>11886857
Now look at the context and see I was talking about how projectors have largely moved onto films being on harddrives instead of literal film. Most movies are shot on SSDs as well these days, film is still used in some, but not as common.

>>11885135
>too heavy
yup, my 36" toshiba hdready weighed 240pounds. gave it to my cousin, under the condition that not ask me to help removing it. wish I still had it, but I didn't have the space for it.

>>11886023
Good goy points have been deposited to your WEF account.

>>11886000
30 good goy points have been deposited to your WEF good tranny.

>>11886824
You are just assuming answers. I know for a fact that many professionals still record to tape then put it into their DAW for editing and mixing, etc. There are still tons of physical equipment and means that can't be matched at the moment or maybe ever from plug-ins.
>No, it's because those older devices could not do better and relied on FLAWS of said mediums, nobody is pining for those flaws.
There is a huge customer base for those 'flaws' which is why they have developed countless plugins and people still seek out those mediums to use in their work. I have hundreds of them. Again, don't comment if you are not sure about things.
As for the Sonic thing, not sure where you are trying to go with that, but Sonic looks better on a CRT, or at least a shader trying to imitate said 'flaws' (didn't you just say nobody is pining for them? then why do shaders exist?)
As for film, some still use it, because they believe the quality is better or they seek said 'flaws' of the medium. The move to digital was for cost efficiency and convenience, quality wasn't the main concern.

OLED won, CRT lost

>>11887194
Left has better color, right is smoother (see wallpaper, etc.)
Also, what do you do with that Stream Deck thing?

>>11885687
First gen DVDs were very often Laserdisc recordings transferred to DVD. So you had the same image quality but now with digital compression adding blocking as they used single layer discs. From 00s onwards, DVDs got new digital transfers and could do progressive display, so things got a lot better, the worst offender is movies pausing for 1-2 seconds in the middle due to layer breaks.
I've been watching some DVDs on decent upscaling equipment and they look decent enough, you only lose detail on CGI garbage scenes, or if you want to count the individual stubbles of hair on Clint Eastwoods face in western movies.

>>11887194
Can you guys at least install HD Project so I don't get an eye sore

>>11887146
>>11887157
>I have no counter-argument
I accept your concession

>>11887321
>NO COUNTER ARGUMENT
>SOURCE???? >:OOOOO

>>11887186
>I know for a fact that many professionals still record to tape then put it into their DAW for editing and mixing, etc.
And I know that many have ditched that. It's hard to take you seriously when you tried to claim that DVD is inferior to VHS, everyone called you out on that one.
>There is a huge customer base for those 'flaws'
And then we have delusions like this. No, there is not a "juge consumer base", the consumer base is a niche within a niche within a niche. It's absolutely minuscule, you are delusional if you think there is a large consumer base for still using CRTs. Using a shader is nothing like fucking around with massive CRTs, that's like arguing that using Dosbox is the same as setting up a real DOS pc.
>(didn't you just say nobody is pining for them? then why do shaders exist?)
English motherfucker, do you speak it? Or is it your reading comprehension that is shit?
I said that nobody is pining for games STILL doing those tricks, because we have no fucking need for them anymore because the hardware has long been capable of just doing it. We are stuck with these 30-40 year old games doing it because of hardware limits at the time, so shaders(Hint: which the majority of people playing retro games don't use, hell, half the time you see someone playing a retro game they have it stretched to fucking 16:9) are used to try to get those effects back so the game does not look like a mess, it's not an issue with modern games because we don't need to rely in a blurry inferior screen's flaws to try to pull off those tricks.
>As for film, some still use it, because they believe the quality is better
Some, not most, SOME still use it, but not because they believe it's "better", again, that's like arguing that the quality of vinyl is better.

11887325
There is no way you're old enough to post here

>>11885106 (OP)
expensive and heavy

>>11887219
They still do it. I rented a DVD of a show a few years back because one season wasn't on my streaming service. The quality was dogshit and the episodes that aired on my tv were way better quality. It was also at that time I realized how high quality modern tv broadcasts have gotten.

>>11887327
We know many have ditched older tech and analogue means, and again, cost and convenience is often a major factor, we have established this. Anyone can record guitar straight to PC, but there are still many professionals who prefer to do it to tape first, and hearing the difference and also trying to mix straight to digital guitar, I know the difference. Same as people still using real guitar pedals, etc. even though the tech for digital has improved drastically and is way more cost efficient.
>And then we have delusions like this. No, there is not a "juge consumer base", the consumer base is a niche within a niche within a niche.
If we're not talking about every single person on earth and are in fact talking about professionals or at least people seriously into a certain area, then yes, there is huge demand, as evidenced by the huge amount of successful products released to emulate them. Pretty much everybody has multiple forms of emulation for old equipment if they are working with audio, and those kinds of thing are built into pro image and video editing software.
>there is a large consumer base for still using CRTs.
Nobody said this.
>I said that nobody is pining for games STILL doing those tricks
Nobody is arguing this point in particular
>half the time you see someone playing a retro game they have it stretched to fucking 16:9
People doing this obviously don't care much about things like image quality so are outside the bounds of what is being discussed.
>Some, not most, SOME still use it, but not because they believe it's "better"
What? So why do directors intentionally still use film when digital is much cheaper and easier if they don't think it is better?
>the quality of vinyl is better.
Never got into vinyl, but the medium has its own distinct coloring of the audio, same as cassettes and CD's, etc. And just fyi, yes, they also have programs to emulate the traits or 'flaws' of early digital music, such as bad compression, clipping, artefacts, etc

>>11887390
>We know many have ditched older tech and analogue means, and again, cost and convenience is often a major factor, we have established this. Anyone can record guitar straight to PC, but there are still many professionals who prefer to do it to tape first, and hearing the difference and also trying to mix straight to digital guitar, I know the difference. Same as people still using real guitar pedals, etc. even though the tech for digital has improved drastically and is way more cost efficient.
And some people even still unironically use an Amiga for music to this day, just because some are clinging to the classic stuff does not mean it's superior.
>If we're not talking about every single person on earth and are in fact talking about professionals
We are talking about people playing retro games... Is specifically mentioned the waterfall in Sonic several times, what make you think I was talking about professional musicians when I was talking about using CRTs and shaders?
>Nobody said this.
>Nobody is arguing this point in particular
You directly replied to my comment about flaws of CRTs by saying there was a large consumer base, you realize all this time when I talked about taking advantage of flaws I was talking about composite and CRTs right? Again, that's why I mentioned the Sonic waterfall several times as it's the most well known example.
>People doing this obviously don't care much about things like image quality so are outside the bounds of what is being discussed.
My point was how much of a minority those who would bother with a CRT are
>What? So why do directors intentionally still use film when digital is much cheaper and easier if they don't think it is better?
See Amiga example above
>Never got into vinyl
I did, since the 80s even even till today, but I play it simply because I find it fun to play music that way, I don't find it superior to modern formats

>>11886497
>Because flat screens are less heavy,
Manlet issue
>no one besides weird autists really cared about input lag and other shit.
Literally the opposite. Only aspie tards prioritized fake woke " energy efficient" bullshit over actual performance.

>>11885150
You're forgetting the part where they're more damaging to your eyesight too

>>11887532
Not sure if that one was ever true, especially after they started putting lead in the tubes to reduce the radiation.

lcd's make sense as something you're going to make a billion of and put in every office in the world. it's a very efficient, practical way to display media, and for most this is preferable. there's nothing evil or sinister about that, there was no jewish trick, it was a natural choice.
It is unfortunate that the enthusiast benefits of crt eventually died out completely and couldn't hold onto a niche but it is the nature of manufacturing televisions that the supply chains could not be sustained for anything less than a mass consumer base.

>>11886583
>let me show you how grown up I am by strawmanning, replying to the whole thread and, and posting zoomie hot takes
lol

>>11885980
GC RE4 didn't have anamorphoc widescreen, so no. It might be the PC HD port.

The only good thing about CRTs was latency. Everything else sucked.

>>11888327
They also have better motion clarity and can natively display any resolution within their scan range.

>>11888327
>im too young to have ever used a crt

>>11885679
i dont have mates

>>11885150
>The only benefits CRTs have are when retro consoles took advantage of their FAULTS to do things like blur closeby pixels together to transparency effects or produce more colors (and even that was mostly the low quality signal from the RCA or composite cable doing the work, not the CRT itself), took advantage of the quirks of how it draws an image to make lightguns, and took advantage of it's analog nature for reduced latency (which a good upscaler can nearly match these days anyway)
You also forgot about the better contrast and colors and temporal image quality, IE, they don't blur motion like LCDs do. A hundred dollar cheap CRT's motion clarity would beat the ever living shit out of the most die hard LCD 160hz Black Frame Insertion monitor to date, and do it at 60hz or even sometimes 100hz... and with ultra low latency on top of that. Sometimes also brighter with all that shit on.

CRTs at comparable resolutions simply looked and performed better when properly calibrated.

That being said... the other points you made are legitimate... there's pros and cons to both and the cost and size and total resolution mostly won out. Minus the "better suited for digital signals" which is... not true at all. DV is good for LCDs but there's no negative in sourcing them for CRTs at all... and you get the crispy visuals. That being said, analog video wasn't by any means terrible either.
I used to have friends over to play games and they'd bring their LCDs and every time they always commented on how much better the CRT looked, both in black levels and motion and feel...

>>11885106 (OP)
Someday we'll have consumer AGI bots that can mine the materials and build an entire CRT factory for you while firing death beams at anybody who tries to intervene, don't worry

>>11885135
>wrap it in plastic
>put it in a big see-through pool of water
>tv weighs less in the water
>dont have to worry about your floor breaking
No reason why this wouldnt work

>>11885106 (OP)
heavy
expensive to manufacture
spacey
high power consumption

worse in every regard except in displaying retro video games

The only niche for crt monitors at this point is for old pc games. Playing old fpses at 120 hz on a crt feels very nice.

>>11885493

I think the only type of watchable media that looks better on a crt tv is anything animated. Something about it is irreplaceable. They also make DVDs go from shit to pretty decent if comparing to DVD watching on modern hd panels.

>>11886454

Retro isn't that great on crt monitors, what are you talking about. CRT tv or bust for retro

>>11886706

CRT emudriver

>>11887512
>Only aspie tards prioritized fake woke " energy efficient" bullshit over actual performance.
Culture war brain rot, it's because people think energy efficient appliances can lower their electric bills.

>>11889605
you are a dumb fucking retard

>>11889590
>Retro isn't that great on crt monitors, what are you talking about. CRT tv or bust for retro
Stop using laggy modern OS and use windows 2000 with directdraw, the performance is perfect

>>11885106 (OP)
old bad new good

>>11885679
>What are ya mates for anyway?
Is this homosexual slang?

>>11886460
>Movies
You mean tv shows. Movies were never designed for TV's. Unless they were movies specifically made for broadcast or VHS and never shown in theaters.

>>11886486
Biggest issue with the weight of a CRT is that it isn't balanced. Much of the mass is situated towards the glass panel. I'm in my late 30's, and I remember having to lift 42 CRT's into vans when I was a teen, usually down the stairs, not fun.

>>11885106 (OP)
Have any people died because a CRT fell on them?

>>11889590
>I think the only type of watchable media that looks better on a crt tv is anything animated.
animation benefits a lot from obfuscating simplistic detail with noise. even if there's no real intent behind it just the presence of some kind of noise rounds out large spots of solid color, stops it from looking to garish. I imagine at least a decent chunk of the problem people have with digital animation would go away if viewed through a crt.

>>11889605
>people think energy efficient appliances can lower their electric bills.
Many such class actions

>>11890475
damn why did you have to move 42 CRTs and how did you keep count all this time?

>>11890514
While this is true, most old animation already has noise from being on film.

>>11885552
>>11885980
>>11888326
>>11885494
>>11885464

>Top
GameCube

>Bottom
PC with HD Project Mod

>>11890514
>>11890672
>While this is true, most old animation already has noise from being on film.

DBZ Levels Set was pretty kino

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HChKbmB2J-c

your monitor can pass all these tests, right anon?

>>11885972
>This, look at sitcoms from before LCDs that were set in what were then modern times. Chances are there will be an episode where either the main character or their rival wants to get some massive TV.

Yep.

https://youtu.be/BTTFX31WCCY&t=201

And this was produced right around when LCDs were about to make their move

>>11890709
>And this was produced right around when LCDs were about to make their move

To be fair though that show takes place in the 70s. One of the episodes was about Red getting a state-of-the-art device called a VCR, and when he fucked up using it he commented he should have gotten a microwave instead. Even for a show produced today if it takes place in the 80s or 90s it would not be out of place for someone to make a big deal out of getting a large TV, possibly even rear projection.

>>11890835
Yeah but the joke is that he thinks 26" is huge, to the point he didn't know they made them. That's the 90s audience laughing at the silly 70s man because they all had 26" TVs but they would have reacted the same way to Sony's 43" monstrosity

>>11890861
To be fair, there was a lot of "Ha ha ha look at tech back then" jokes in that show. I remember when one of the characters was modifying Red's Pong game to have smaller paddles so it would be more challenging, after he did it successfully Red congratulated him and told him that he had just gotten first-hand experience on the future of technology. The character replied with "I know, computers will change the world!" or something like that, to which Red replied "What? No, I meant soldering!" and then scoffed at the idea of computers.

And there was that VCR/Microwave thing I mentioned.

Though I don't think the size of the TV was meant to be a joke, most people I know their biggest CRT was around 25, I don't think any above roughly 30 were even really commercially available, you would have to go with rear projection to start going bigger. (And apparently those did exist in the 70s?)

crts are fine but the people who are still using them usually have a mental defect

>>11885106 (OP)
I remember finally getting my own HDTV in 2007 when I was a freshman in college. It was such a big fucking deal since by then they started going down in price. I mean I get it, it can be a connection to ones youth, but I do not miss them at all.

>>11886857
That's correct, but even for outspoken pro-film autismos like Nolan or Tarantino who will absolutely never shoot a movie digitally as long as they live, digital projection will still be how almost every moviegoer actually sees those films.

>>11886486
this
not only is it large, heavy, and awkward as shit to carry
it's super fragile, I remember moving a 36inch into my buddies place and damn that was a fucking task

>>11885492
No one is saying to replace hd screens but just like horses people still love them and use them for trails, park rides, fun, etc.

>>11885106 (OP)
OLED's have advanced to being reliable and lasting enough to finally make CRT's fully obsolete.
you can move on now

>>11892016
OLEDs last 20 years now?

>>11885106 (OP)
>Why did we stop using CRT monitors?

Speaking as a casual gamer...they were just too big and bulky. It a big square box. It took up a lot of room and were difficult to move around. Anything bigger than 27 inch screens became very hard to move for 1 person and expensive.


At the time (2000s) the the attitude of society was about looking to the future. We were obsessed with making things thinner and smaller and more portable. It's only recently in the 2020s that society now looks to the past and remembers CRTs fondly.


The last CRT factory closed in 2005. It was in Mexico. I believe either Toshiba or Panasonic owned it. The factory and manufacturing equipment was sold to China. They promised to restart production and make cheap CRTs for low end markets. But the Chinese either lied or couldn't do it. I've heard nothing about new CRT tubes being made. So the Chinese probably gave up and scrapped the CRT production equipment.

>>11885164
>>11885496
LCD Manufacturers have lobbied the government, passed laws, and made it super difficult to find spare parts to repair LCD equipment and other electronics. This isn't the 1990s or 2000s anymore.

If something breaks, manufacturers prefer that you buy a brand new product. They don't want you to repair your old equipment and save money. They push you to buy new gear.

Same reason why smartphones are sealed shut now and batteries are not easily replaceable like in the 2010s. They don't want you to replace the battery. They want you to buy a new smartphone every 1 to 2 years.

They used the excuse or making the phone "waterproof" and glued the phone shut. Which honestly doesn't make sense since I own a waterproof mini GoPro camera, and tiny battery is still replaceable.

>>11885106 (OP)
Retailers could fill a shipping container from china with 5 times more monitors. We didn't stop buying them, they stopped making them.