|
So I was at work a couple days ago, and i checked craigslist as usual to see if their were any deals, as you never know the treasure you are gonna find. Well i notice an ad for an FW900, and its in its only 2 miles away from my house. I'm filled with excitement, this is the monitor i have wanted for a very long time, but i have never wanted to throw 300+ bucks at it, and that's not including shipping.
Now an FW900 is a CRT, one of the few widescreen CRTs, its enormous with a 24 inch screen, and... it's 93 pounds. So i call the guy up, he says its in pretty good condition physically, but the blacks on it are not what they used to be. I'm not sure what that means totally, I'm like sure no problem, what's the price though? he says "20 bucks, it's priced to sell" I'm like sure, when can i pick it up, he says tomorrow. So me and a friend go up there after i get up work(i think i might need help as this thing is pretty heavy), i knock at the door, guy answers, says come by the 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.
So eventually i get it home, hook the fucker up to my computer, and when he said the "blacks aren't what they used to be" he wasn't kidding. The thing had this horrible brightness, and wasn't showing true black as i expect from my CRT's. So I feel really disappointed, the image quality is so bad that i can't use it. But then i cool off, think logically, and think, maybe it has image restoration(a lot of my other CRT's have that) to fix the obviously off centered tubes. Well, i have to wait for the thing to warm up, and that takes an hour in half. but eventually it warms up, i run image restoration on the thing, and bam, the image pops and corrects itself after about a minute. Still a little off though, so i adjust some of the settings and make sure it has true black and a good contrast settings as well as proper color levels. So i get all that done. But CRT's need a little extra oomph to make their quality skyrocket. They need improved hertz. Now my old CRT could do 1024x768 @ 100 hertz and 800x600 @ 120 hertz and had a maximum resolution of 2048x1536@ 60 hertz. Both are very acceptable to me. But this new CRT, well, it can do 1280x800 @ 140hz, it was amazing, playing starcraft 2 like this was incredibly smooth, as well as quakelive and TF2 being amazing at 140hz and widescreen. But this was what i expected, as well as the improved image quality and colors over my current CRT. But I wanted to do a good test, how good can this thing look, so I put it at 2304x1440@80 hertz, put on the scene "old times" in SC2 and I'm just blown away by the colors and lighting. The screen is so big, and the game is so smooth that It seemed like a different scene to me, my jaw literally dropped as i saw the great detail and amazing lighting in Tychus face. And all of this for 20 bucks, some ruined pants, and a very odd situation.
So if you guys are prowling craigslist and see a 24" inch widescreen Sony or Trinitron monitor, for a good price, grab it, despite it's size and weight, and despite what you may think about older CRT technology, it truly is the best monitor that you can get.
 
|
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.
|
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.
Yes, I'm telling you that CRTs are better than LED/LCDS in 2011. Only, really high quality ones, cause the average CRT is shit, just like most LED's/ LCDS.
But the FW900 is the BEST monitor in the world in terms of image quality, no LCD is even close.
Tip just because a technology is old, or dead, does not mean its a bad technology. Think about it like this, the processor in my smartphone, was originally made in 1999 for netbook pcs, and we are finally using it in 2011, Now it runs an android OS. If technology is good, it doesn't matter when it is made.
|
Sounds interesting, I'm very picky when it comes to screens.
At least, if I buy one, I'll make sure to wear underwear !
On July 02 2011 02:57 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +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. Tip just because a technology is old, or dead, does not mean its a bad technology. Think about it like this, the processor in my smartphone, was originally made in 1999 for netbook pcs, and we are finally using it in 2011, Now it runs an android OS. If technology is good, it doesn't matter when it is made.
What ? What CPU does your smartphone uses ? a Pentium 2 ? Of course old technologies can sometimes produce better results than the new ones. But comparing your smartphone CPU with '99 PC CPU ?!
|
Aren't CRTs better than LCDs for FPS?
|
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.
I work in the visual effects field, where color calibration, uniformity, and wide view angle are essential. The best CRTs are way beyond most LCDs in this regard, but the companies that used to make CRT monitors have largely stopped. This means that many visual effects companies are reduced to stockpiling CRT monitors that are no longer in production.
When I worked at Dreamworks Animation, this was considered a serious enough issue that they teamed up with HP to develop an LCD monitor that met their specifications. The result is this:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/382087-382087-64283-72270-3884471-3648397.html
A $2500 beast that does the job well enough, given appropriate calibration hardware and software support.
Color calibration is the bane of professional media. Few engineers understand it, including some self-proclaimed experts in the field. It's really frustrating.
Edit: I love my current job, but the fact that every digital lighter at Dreamworks has one of those on their desks does occasionally make me wonder why I left my last one. 
|
On July 02 2011 02:59 endy wrote:Sounds interesting, I'm very picky when it comes to screens. At least, if I buy one, I'll make sure to wear underwear ! Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 02:57 r_con wrote: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. Tip just because a technology is old, or dead, does not mean its a bad technology. Think about it like this, the processor in my smartphone, was originally made in 1999 for netbook pcs, and we are finally using it in 2011, Now it runs an android OS. If technology is good, it doesn't matter when it is made. What ? What CPU does your smartphone uses ? a Pentium 2 ? Of course old technologies can sometimes produce better results than the new ones. But comparing your smartphone CPU with '99 PC CPU ?!
the arm11 in my CPU was developed and created in 2002, not 99, sorry.
But I'm simply stating, that how "good" technology is has nothing to do with when it was created. It matters the goals of the tool or device, is all I'm trying to get, so I should have made that more clear. Sometimes discoveries will make a technology better, but sometimes it will sacrifice something for it. It's like saying mp3s are better than CD's for sound. sure its newer technology, but the sound quality is worse, so you give portability / convenience, for worse sound quality.
|
On July 02 2011 03:17 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 02:59 endy wrote:Sounds interesting, I'm very picky when it comes to screens. At least, if I buy one, I'll make sure to wear underwear ! On July 02 2011 02:57 r_con wrote: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. Tip just because a technology is old, or dead, does not mean its a bad technology. Think about it like this, the processor in my smartphone, was originally made in 1999 for netbook pcs, and we are finally using it in 2011, Now it runs an android OS. If technology is good, it doesn't matter when it is made. What ? What CPU does your smartphone uses ? a Pentium 2 ? Of course old technologies can sometimes produce better results than the new ones. But comparing your smartphone CPU with '99 PC CPU ?! the arm11 in my CPU was developed and created in 2002, not 99, sorry. But I'm simply stating, that how "good" technology is has nothing to do with when it was created. It matters the goals of the tool or device, is all I'm trying to get, so I should have made that more clear. Sometimes discoveries will make a technology better, but sometimes it will sacrifice something for it. It's like saying mp3s are better than CD's for sound. sure its newer technology, but the sound quality is worse, so you give portability / convenience, for worse sound quality.
But 2002 ARM11 CPUs have nothing to do with 2011 ARM11 CPUs in terms of performance, energy consumption, price, etc.
Agree on the rest.
|
I do have to add that the low power consumption and smaller footprint of LCD monitors is a HUGE benefit compared to CRT technology. I use LCDs at home, where my work doesn't have to be that color accurate, and it's so much better than when I had a huge CRT clogging up my desk.
|
Awesome! I had the NEC 24" CRT (not widescreen, can't remember what model number it was now) and it was amazing. I prefer my 30" Dell LCD for poker and desktop work, but nothing beats a CRT for gaming.
The only problem tends to be as they get old the brightness really starts to drop.
|
Best part about crts is the high refresh rate, which no one that plays starcraft seems to care about, but it's so annoying playing on those shitty lcds with 60hz, gives me a headache.
CRT until other monitors have 120+ hz and are cheap, otherwise crts kick their asses ^^
|
On July 02 2011 03:05 TOloseGT wrote:
Aren't CRTs better than LCDs for FPS?
They used to be significantly better, mainly because of poor response times and ghosting issues, but nowadays LCD tech has gotten far better. Even the top quake and CS pros all use LCDs now, the difference in performance isn't noticable at all and the LCDs are far more conventient.
|
On July 02 2011 03:24 sob3k wrote:They used to be significantly better, mainly because of poor response times and ghosting issues, but nowadays LCD tech has gotten far better. Even the top quake and CS pros all use LCDs now, the difference in performance isn't noticable at all and the LCDs are far more conventient.
It is noticeable, unless they're using high refresh rate LCDS, its DEFINITELY noticeable.
|
CRT is still better than LCD when it comes to response times and input lag. 120Hz LCDs are nice and all, but 120Hz on a CRT is still nicer and any quake pro will tell you exactly this. They're just not feasible at tournaments anymore, so 120Hz LCDs are the next best thing.
An FW900 for $20 is an awesome deal, grats.
|
I would be interested in a comparison to OLED screens, which are supposed to be just as good as CRTs at true black and such, but I've never actually seen one myself(At least not knowingly, I've wandered around futureshop and whatnot).
|
Haven't used CRT's in like 6 or 7 years now at least lol,g lad you can find one though, especially widescreen thats rare. At least they're lagless
|
On July 02 2011 03:32 Inschato wrote:
true black
"True black" is overrated. Unfortunately, many monitor manufacturers do annoying things like put filters on their screens or use electronic means to clamp low signal levels to black, which means that yeah, you get a true black, but you also lose all detail in the dark parts of images.
One critical aspect to a monitor with good color characteristics is to have a smooth (preferably linear) ramp-off at the dark end, but because many consumers would rather have saturated blacks than shadow detail, it can be hard to find that.
|
Reading this blog, I was under the impression the discussion would focus on what the hell kind of person walks around waving their long dong silver over a CRT monitor, but I guess the technotalk about image quality is more exciting 
|
On July 02 2011 03:41 Lysenko wrote:"True black" is overrated. Unfortunately, many monitor manufacturers do annoying things like put filters on their screens or use electronic means to clamp low signal levels to black, which means that yeah, you get a true black, but you also lose all detail in the dark parts of images. One critical aspect to a monitor with good color characteristics is to have a smooth (preferably linear) ramp-off at the dark end, but because many consumers would rather have saturated blacks than shadow detail, it can be hard to find that.
Agreed, it pains me to see the sharp contrasts of modern LCDs, when you see the abrupt and ugly artificial contrasts as you approach darker colors
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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~!
|
On July 02 2011 04:19 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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
|
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
|
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.
|
I'd still be using my Samsung 997DF if it didn't start to die on me. I still prefer CRTs, and my only sticking point in moving to an LCD was ensuring I got a 120hz one for my games. So, I'm not using a Samsung 2233RZ. Awesome monitor but I still prefer CRTs.
|
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.
|
On July 02 2011 05:02 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 04:19 Lysenko wrote: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. 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.
|
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.
|
oh my god the screen is beautiful!
how much did it cost you?
|
I'm so jealous. :o
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
|
This story was made by the fact you tore your pants in the front like that. And no underwear? Hahahaha. Too good.
|
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.
|
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
|
On July 02 2011 05:02 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2011 04:19 Lysenko wrote: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. 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.
|
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
|
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
|
On July 04 2011 11:16 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +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
Actually, it weighs 93lb. 107.8 is it's shipping weight including boxing.
|
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
|
Thanks r_con for the amusing story and interesting to hear from everyone about how much better good CRTs are than LCDs for serious gaming or visual effects, I had no idea.
|
On July 04 2011 11:20 Headless wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2011 11:16 TadH wrote: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 Actually, it weighs 93lb. 107.8 is it's shipping weight including boxing.
A box does not weigh 14.8 pounds.
|
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver.
|
I am so jealous! Always wanted to get one but now i cant even find a single one on ebay anymore.
|
On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver.
It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all.
You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend.
|
On July 05 2011 07:03 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver. It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all. You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend.
I'm sorry, but my FW900 is amazing and yes, it is 93 pounds. Sorry you probably have never had a good CRT, much less know how to set one up proper. A CRT default is garbage, but once you set them up they are absolutely amazing. Ive used LCDs, and the 2233rz doesn't hold a candle to the FW900.
|
On July 05 2011 10:02 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 07:03 TadH wrote:On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver. It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all. You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend. I'm sorry, but my FW900 is amazing and yes, it is 93 pounds. Sorry you probably have never had a good CRT, much less know how to set one up proper. A CRT default is garbage, but once you set them up they are absolutely amazing. Ive used LCDs, and the 2233rz doesn't hold a candle to the FW900.
Alright, well good luck with that. I hope you enjoy your 107.8 pound monitor.
|
On July 05 2011 10:02 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 07:03 TadH wrote:On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver. It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all. You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend. I'm sorry, but my FW900 is amazing and yes, it is 93 pounds. Sorry you probably have never had a good CRT, much less know how to set one up proper. A CRT default is garbage, but once you set them up they are absolutely amazing. Ive used LCDs, and the 2233rz doesn't hold a candle to the FW900.
the 2233rz has been out for quite a few years though^^
im using the lg w2363d which is a newer 120hz lcd, really liking it a lot.
|
On July 05 2011 07:03 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver. It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all. You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend.
Actually, yes, it does. The BNC cable that came with this monitor weighs 3+ lb all by itself; it's 15 feet long multiple coax runs. The foam in the box is dense and heavy; it's not styrofoam. It has to keep a 93lb monitor from breaking when thrown off of a UPS truck - a dead drop of 4+ feet in some cases. Calling the FW900 garbage confirms the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, if your other statements about packaging didn't already. Have you ever even seen an FW900 in person? I love how people make definitive statements about shit they have never seen like 'oh that's garbage'. Okie buddy, whatever you say. Just makes you sound like an ignorant dumbass. It's perfectly clear you don't care for CRT's at all, which is why you are making stupid statements about shit you don't understand.
|
On July 05 2011 12:16 Azuroz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 10:02 r_con wrote:On July 05 2011 07:03 TadH wrote:On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver. It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all. You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend. I'm sorry, but my FW900 is amazing and yes, it is 93 pounds. Sorry you probably have never had a good CRT, much less know how to set one up proper. A CRT default is garbage, but once you set them up they are absolutely amazing. Ive used LCDs, and the 2233rz doesn't hold a candle to the FW900. the 2233rz has been out for quite a few years though^^ im using the lg w2363d which is a newer 120hz lcd, really liking it a lot.
The lg w2363d is a decent LCD monitor with regards to input lag and refresh rate, but it's vertical viewing angle is absolutely fucking horrible. I bought one and returned it the next day; grays at the top of the screen were a totally different shade than the bottom and would change just by moving my head up and down.
I really think most people are so used to seeing horrible image display qualities from LCD's that by now they just think that's how it's supposed to be. The reality is that CRT's were doing 120+hz a decade ago and had zero viewing angle problems and much better color reproduction dollar for dollar than any lcd you can buy today. You have to either spend thousands on an LCD for good color reproduction, and then deal with horrible input lag, or spend many hundreds on an LCD with good refresh rate, but then deal with horrible viewing angles and color reproduction. Or you can get an FW900 and have all of the above - for a cost of needing (a) a beefy desk and (b) about 90watts more power draw than your average LCD.
|
On July 05 2011 10:06 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 10:02 r_con wrote:On July 05 2011 07:03 TadH wrote:On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver. It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all. You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend. I'm sorry, but my FW900 is amazing and yes, it is 93 pounds. Sorry you probably have never had a good CRT, much less know how to set one up proper. A CRT default is garbage, but once you set them up they are absolutely amazing. Ive used LCDs, and the 2233rz doesn't hold a candle to the FW900. Alright, well good luck with that. I hope you enjoy your 107.8 pound monitor.
LOL, of course! because the weight of a monitor is the most important thing right? Nevermind how it works - <bigGayAl>i want a light, pretty little thing that matches my carpet and makes my keyboard look spiffy and new and sexay!!!. </bigGayAl> Yyyyuuuck, how could someone want something that performs excellently but is bigger than the horribly deficient competition?
|
It is sad that most people are used to shit quality screens. I have a friend that refuses to use anything but CRT's after he saw how good the colors were if you set them up right.( these were on typical high end CRTs that could do 2048x1536@60 hertz) He got a better desk just so that he could do it.
I demand a comfortable setup. I have a massive pine desk that can easily support the weight of FW900. I have a really good comfortable office chair.
I have a 36" by 18" mousepad, that covers my desk, i have a high quality mechanical keyboard, i have an microsoft wheel mouse optical running at 500 hertz with Teflon feet. I have done registry hacks to have no windows mouse acceleration. I have a solid headset and a good headphone amp. My computer can run things really well, so that i can always run my games at 120fps+ and if it can't, I change the settings to make it that way(unless its a fighting game of course).
I spend most of my free time on the computer, so it may as well be the god damn most comfortable place on earth.
|
On July 05 2011 23:21 Headless wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 10:06 TadH wrote:On July 05 2011 10:02 r_con wrote:On July 05 2011 07:03 TadH wrote:On July 05 2011 06:03 Headless wrote:
Boxing includes the boxes themselves, foam packaging, accessory cables, manuals, etc. etc.
Yes, it does add up to 15 pounds. Have you ever seen a 24" widescreen CRT packaged? Do you realise what it takes to safely ship a CRT that weighs 93 LBs through UPS and still have it undamaged at the other end? The box is positively massive and it's stuffed with shock reducing dense foam.
The monitor weighs 92.6 pounds. How do I know this? Because I own 2 of them; i'm making this post from one in fact. The shipping weight is 107.8 lbs which includes the abovementioned things.
Oh, one other thing for anyone who wants to get one - the FW900 was also sold as the HP A7217A - same tube, different company. it's beige rather than silver. It's still a piece of garbage. And I personally don't care for CRT's at all. You're telling me a cardboard box, some foam, maybe some bubble wrap, a power cord and a vga/dvi/whatever cord adds up to 14 pounds? Hard to believe my friend. I'm sorry, but my FW900 is amazing and yes, it is 93 pounds. Sorry you probably have never had a good CRT, much less know how to set one up proper. A CRT default is garbage, but once you set them up they are absolutely amazing. Ive used LCDs, and the 2233rz doesn't hold a candle to the FW900. Alright, well good luck with that. I hope you enjoy your 107.8 pound monitor. LOL, of course! because the weight of a monitor is the most important thing right? Nevermind how it works - <bigGayAl>i want a light, pretty little thing that matches my carpet and makes my keyboard look spiffy and new and sexay!!!. </bigGayAl> Yyyyuuuck, how could someone want something that performs excellently but is bigger than the horribly deficient competition?
The weight is clearly the deciding factor of all my electronic purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
