| Blogs > r_con |
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On July 02 2011 04:15 brazenraven wrote: dude, i'm picking one up right now. only question i have is, how much does it weigh? is it closer to 50 or 100 pounds? A 24-inch CRT monitor is probably in the 50 lb. range. | ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3693 Posts
| ||
|
brazenraven
Romania122 Posts
On July 02 2011 04:26 bITt.mAN wrote: Sounds awesome, even now some times I pop on the old computer with the massive (I think) 24in CRT beast and Brood War looks so crisp, it's awesome! Could you post a picture of your new baby? Well for the irony of seeing such new games on such an old display. seconded. pictures pleaase~! | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 02 2011 04:19 Lysenko wrote: A 24-inch CRT monitor is probably in the 50 lb. range. it's definitely closer to 100lbs i have a 21" sony sitting around and that has a shipping weight of like 80lbs. if only i could find the desk space to put it into use  | ||
|
Ravencruiser
Canada519 Posts
Lol get out, unless you're a cat or something  | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:02 mahnini wrote: it's definitely closer to 100lbs I guess you're right... I was thinking more like a 19" monitor, because that's what we have at work. The weight goes up exponentially with the size because of the thicker glass needed to support the shape of the evacuated CRT tube against the air pressure around it. Years ago I worked at Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics as an engineer, and the 40" TV tubes had a five-inch-thick front face. Those TVs weighed about 250 lbs. I recall trying to lift one of those 40" TVs and hearing a nasty <crack> sound from my lower back. I was in pain for a couple of weeks. Fortunately, it hasn't been a frequently recurring injury. | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:07 Ravencruiser wrote: You're telling me you can notice the difference between 100/120/140 hertz in SC2? It is possible to see the difference, though it's subtle. The easiest way is to stand way back and look up and down past the screen quickly. With a low refresh-rate monitor, like at 60 Hz, the display will look partially black when you do this, or appear to flicker. How frame rates affect perception is actually extremely complex and poorly understood, and above 60 Hz the effects are very subtle, but they're definitely measurable and noticeable in some viewing arrangements. | ||
|
brazenraven
Romania122 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:02 mahnini wrote: it's definitely closer to 100lbs i have a 21" sony sitting around and that has a shipping weight of like 80lbs. if only i could find the desk space to put it into use well thats a l0t heavier than 50 pounds. thanks for the replies, guys. | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:07 Ravencruiser wrote: You're telling me you can notice the difference between 100/120/140 hertz in SC2? Lol get out, unless you're a cat or something i can notice the different between 100 and 120 in an instant. I just started using 140, and it feels slight smoother, but i haven't instinctively gotten used to it for me to notice when its lower. I'm Currently using it beside my older CRT @ 100 hz, and i can instantly tell the difference. To me, its partially a comfort thing as I can tell the difference more Quake than starcraft 2, but trust me, its noticeable. the 3 21 inches i have are 60-80 pounds the FW900 is 93 pounds, its REALLY FUCKING HEAVY. I just got my new phone with a camera on it so ill take a picture of it once I get home. I haven't thrown BW on it yet, but i did played a Street fighter third strike emulator on it and it just looks fucking awesome. Edit: Also, if your strong enough, you should be able to carry it yourself. | ||
|
LanTAs
United States1091 Posts
how much did it cost you? | ||
|
strayzor
Germany50 Posts
2 years ago my 21" trinitron died. My parents wouldn't let me buy a FW900 (power consumption blabla fml). So i got a random tn monitor.. which led to an ips tv later on because you cant watch movies on those things. :> Also 20 bucks.. nice :O | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
mutantmagnet
United States3791 Posts
On July 02 2011 02:52 Horuku wrote: You're telling me CRTs, a dead technology, are better than LED/LCDs in 2011? Don't believe it, you can get really good true black on LCDs nowadays. Good story none the less. Both technologies have pros and cons. LCDs are more energy, space, and weight efficient. LCDs also commonly come in widescreen formats. This means LCDs are less of a burden on your electric bill, are the best choice for multi-display setups and can be fit on walls or a variety of desks. Since movies moved over to 1.778 widescreen displays don't have black border issues. On top of that if you have an LCD that can rotate the screen you get superior reading real estate for the same pixel density of CRTs. CRTs have better color reproduction, aren't fixed to one optimal resolution or refresh rate and zero lag. For gaming CRTs are superior in every way. For movies CRTs can be better because of the better colors but in general they aren't. | ||
|
Kezzer
United States1268 Posts
On July 02 2011 02:47 r_con wrote: garage, so i go to the garage, and i see it, this massive fucking cube. I hand him his 20 bucks. I go lift the the thing, and as i lift it, my nice work pants rip straight in half and my cock flops out(i don't wear boxers) and i just start laughing my ass off. The guy just looks at me with this funny look, and then starts laughing, and its just the funniest shit in the world. My friend laughs, picks the thing up, and says "sorry for my friend, he's a bit off". He carries it to his car, I'm laughing my ass off with my cock dangling as i walk across the street in broad day light. wat lol that is the funniest thing ive heard all day | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On July 02 2011 05:02 mahnini wrote: it's definitely closer to 100lbs i have a 21" sony sitting around and that has a shipping weight of like 80lbs. if only i could find the desk space to put it into use I have a goddamn 21" CRT and yeah, that thing is ridiculously heavy. It's also ridiculously durable. When were moving, an individual tried to carry this thing down the stairs (against my permission, I said I was going to deal with it because frankly I don't trust anyone with my hardware), and of course he's carrying it with the heavy side/screen facing outwards. Doesn't take much to lose his balance, he goes flying out the door, through a bush, and face-first into the cement. The monitor slams into the ground and skids across the driveway. Only damage it sustained was a small piece of plastic breaking off of the casing. The monitor itself was fine and still works, I just have no desk space for it. Would love to set it up as a duo with my 24" widescreen LCD for mod work and such. | ||
|
Headless
20 Posts
People seriously do not realise just how much LCD's of today suck balls. They were released about 7 years too early in their development. There are only a few LCDs in existence that do REAL 120hz display - and those are still plagued by pixel refresh times that are fucking horrible. Playing on a CRT @ 140hz feels entirely different if your machine can produce the framerates to keep up. And yes, these do weigh 90+ lb. My computer table has been very slowly bowing in where the FW900 sits; now the monitor sits at approx 15 degree angle due to the table bending. It's kinda awesome actually And they won't even fit in the trunk of a civic - I had to put in in the back fucking seat and it was a bitch even doing that; it barely fit between the seat and the B pillar, i thought I was going to have to remove the front seat and put THAT in the trunk to get the monitor in the car. The day when no more FW900's are out there will be a seriously sad day. These things cost 2500$ new only a few years ago and nowadays almost nobody even knows about them. The difference in using a monitor with 60hz vs 120+hz can be roughly compared to why it's good to have a mouse that does 500hz instead of 100hz. If upgrading your mouse input from 100hz to 500hz helps, you can BET that upgrading your MONITOR from 60 to 120 helps - i mean, think about it; your hand moves the mouse, but your monitor SHOWS YOU WHAT CHANGED. It's also important to realise that having a 140hz refresh rate doesn't fucking help you if your pc is rendering @ 25fps. This is yet another reason many people think it doesn't help - their pc's are not configured to get them enough frames to actually make use of that kind of refresh rate. Naturally, if you want to really use 140hz refresh rate, you want to be rendering 140fps. 1:1 is ideal. Many people, unfortunately, are framerate blind and will never understand just why CRT's are the shit for gaming and LCDs suck for the same reason. I see people all the time who just can't see that their game is running @ 20fps. It's obvious they are impaired (their accuracy is crap at that framerate), but they physically cannot see the low framerates; they think it's all fine. This is also why you see so many posts by people with substandard graphics hardware running @ 1920x1200 w/ all max settings saying their game 'never lags and runs great!!!' when their average FPS is 20-25. Lameness. It does make a much bigger difference in FPS games, as it controls your viewport; getting 120 refreshes in a wrist-flick that takes 1 second to turn gives you much finer control over where you place your crosshair than having only 60 'steps' of accuracy in the same 1 second wrist-flick. One other thing. You can play at any resolution you damn well feel like on a CRT with zero degredation of the image clarity, unlike an LCD that looks like utter shit at anything other than it's native resolution - and at non native resolution lcd's generally add nasty input lag because they are using processing time re-sizing the image. If your video hardware can't do 1920x1200 with decent framerates, you can just run @ 1680x1050 and get great framerates and still a nice crisp and clear picture. Still not good framerate? How about 1600x1000. Still not good? let's drop down to 1280x800. This lets you use cheaper video hardware but still achieve excellent image quality and framerates. It also means that when a new game comes out you are not forced to upgrade your video card just because your LCD forces 1920x1080/1200 unless you want shitty input lag and a blurry ass image. The only place LCD's have the advantage are: 1. power usage/heat generation 2. weight 3. crispness of text display It's just that most people prioritize those things highly rather than badass gaming performance highly. I'd post pics but my camera phone just can't take pics worth posting, especially if the intent is to show off how good the monitor looks. Here's a link to some that someone with a real camera and decent skills did: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1028245089&postcount=1 | ||
|
TadH
Canada1846 Posts
On July 02 2011 04:15 brazenraven wrote: dude, i'm picking one up right now. only question i have is, how much does it weigh? is it closer to 50 or 100 pounds? 107.8 pounds | ||
|
Headless
20 Posts
Actually, it weighs 93lb. 107.8 is it's shipping weight including boxing. | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
On July 04 2011 10:47 Headless wrote: I have an FW900. It is the most awesome fucking monitor in existence. In fact, i have two of them. I drove from florida to atlanta for one, and I drove from north florida to miami for the other. It was worth both trips for these monitors. In fact, if I ever see another FW900 for sale within 500 miles of me, I am going to fucking go buy it. I check weekly. People seriously do not realise just how much LCD's of today suck balls. They were released about 7 years too early in their development. There are only a few LCDs in existence that do REAL 120hz display - and those are still plagued by pixel refresh times that are fucking horrible. Playing on a CRT @ 140hz feels entirely different if your machine can produce the framerates to keep up. And yes, these do weigh 90+ lb. My computer table has been very slowly bowing in where the FW900 sits; now the monitor sits at approx 15 degree angle due to the table bending. It's kinda awesome actually And they won't even fit in the trunk of a civic - I had to put in in the back fucking seat and it was a bitch even doing that; it barely fit between the seat and the B pillar, i thought I was going to have to remove the front seat and put THAT in the trunk to get the monitor in the car. The day when no more FW900's are out there will be a seriously sad day. These things cost 2500$ new only a few years ago and nowadays almost nobody even knows about them. The difference in using a monitor with 60hz vs 120+hz can be roughly compared to why it's good to have a mouse that does 500hz instead of 100hz. If upgrading your mouse input from 100hz to 500hz helps, you can BET that upgrading your MONITOR from 60 to 120 helps - i mean, think about it; your hand moves the mouse, but your monitor SHOWS YOU WHAT CHANGED. It's also important to realise that having a 140hz refresh rate doesn't fucking help you if your pc is rendering @ 25fps. This is yet another reason many people think it doesn't help - their pc's are not configured to get them enough frames to actually make use of that kind of refresh rate. Naturally, if you want to really use 140hz refresh rate, you want to be rendering 140fps. 1:1 is ideal. Many people, unfortunately, are framerate blind and will never understand just why CRT's are the shit for gaming and LCDs suck for the same reason. I see people all the time who just can't see that their game is running @ 20fps. It's obvious they are impaired (their accuracy is crap at that framerate), but they physically cannot see the low framerates; they think it's all fine. This is also why you see so many posts by people with substandard graphics hardware running @ 1920x1200 w/ all max settings saying their game 'never lags and runs great!!!' when their average FPS is 20-25. Lameness. It does make a much bigger difference in FPS games, as it controls your viewport; getting 120 refreshes in a wrist-flick that takes 1 second to turn gives you much finer control over where you place your crosshair than having only 60 'steps' of accuracy in the same 1 second wrist-flick. One other thing. You can play at any resolution you damn well feel like on a CRT with zero degredation of the image clarity, unlike an LCD that looks like utter shit at anything other than it's native resolution - and at non native resolution lcd's generally add nasty input lag because they are using processing time re-sizing the image. If your video hardware can't do 1920x1200 with decent framerates, you can just run @ 1680x1050 and get great framerates and still a nice crisp and clear picture. Still not good framerate? How about 1600x1000. Still not good? let's drop down to 1280x800. This lets you use cheaper video hardware but still achieve excellent image quality and framerates. It also means that when a new game comes out you are not forced to upgrade your video card just because your LCD forces 1920x1080/1200 unless you want shitty input lag and a blurry ass image. The only place LCD's have the advantage are: 1. power usage/heat generation 2. weight 3. crispness of text display It's just that most people prioritize those things highly rather than badass gaming performance highly. I'd post pics but my camera phone just can't take pics worth posting, especially if the intent is to show off how good the monitor looks. Here's a link to some that someone with a real camera and decent skills did: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1028245089&postcount=1 exactly, yeah, my camera phone wont do this monitor justice, its amazing. Wish they re released the FW900 series, would be fucking badass | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Bisu vs Ample
Jaedong vs Flash
Monday Night Weeklies
RSL Revival
GSL
Afreeca Starleague
Barracks vs Leta
Royal vs Light
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
