|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
