Were CRTs really that much better than the displays of today?>tfw Björk knows more about technology than /g/https://youtube.com/watch?v=75WFTHpOw8Y
>>107825321>Were CRTs really that much better than the displays of today?Nope it's a giant cope.
>>107825321No. the people had much lower standards. Back in the 90s the progress was rapid, every year was a revolution, every new game looked better than the year before, every new release was exciting it wasn't like see new iphone same as the old iphone, it was like >last year phone introduced a colored screen>this year phone plays mp3>next year phone can play video>sharing porn over BT in school The thing the autists really are missing is not the CRT screen, it's that sense of wonder being constantly bombarded by the brand new cool shit. If you don't remember the CRT then for you everything has always been the same, you didn't get some miracle tech better than last year's tech.
>>107825507>The thing the autists really are missing is not the CRT screen, it's that sense of wonder being constantly bombarded by the brand new cool shit.What are you talking about, we are being bombarded with new shit nowadays as well, it's just that when you are a kid you don't assume bad faith.
>>107825551>What are you talking about, we are being bombarded with new shit nowadays as well,No dude. It's absolutely not the same. the 90s was the time when you were getting brand new experiences you didn't have before. Like the internet lol. Or the cell phones. When was the last time an iPhone got a completely new feature? It released with a camera. an internet and a touch screen, it has never really changed, just got marginally better.The games went from 2d to 3d, then to shaded 3d, then to realistic looking 3d. Quake 1 and Quake 3 are 3 years apart, Half life 2 came out 5 years later and in 2 years it was Crysis. Look at the kind of people who even want the CRT, it's the retro gamers, they keep posting how different the sprites looked and all. That's the people who's dopamine receptors got oneshot by that 90s wonder bombardment in childhood and they are still chasing that high to this day.
>>107825321There was something warm and charming about how shitty the display looked that has been lost.Tech getting better has never had much to do with life getting better.Dipping into nostalgia is good - diving so deep you abandon the surface is usually a sign your life is on the way out.
>>107825738>There was something warm and charming about how shitty the display looked that has been lost.CRTs didn't neccessarily look shittyThe charm with CRTs was that they were small, they didn't take the whole living room and they were ultimately a means to watch awesome shows or play awesome gamesIt was the simplicity of those days that wer charm It was a more intimate experienceNow every retard wants a giant TV on their tiny ass apartments and TV Shows all suck and so do games so people are more watching the quality of the displays than being immersed into the magic of a show(because modern TV and Vidya are soulless)
>>107825321Depends: IMO, entry level CRT looks better than most entry/mid tier LED, but get blown by any OLEDAnd the comparaison is done on current decade LED ... now imagine early 2000 LED, or worse LCD lol! The quality on the HDReady Samsung tvs was comically badAnything 480p or lower will looks better on a CRT than an OLED (better resolution, altough slighly lower quality colors) and the input lag for games is unmatched
>>107825803>The charm with CRTs was that they were smallNo they weren't the CRT TV's were as large as it was feasible to make. huge enormous fucking bricks you planned your entire room around and of course the bigger was cooler the rich fags had those huge plasmas it was such a fucking envy to see them. There was never a time when the people humbly appreciated the little things. They weren't the little things in the first place, people had the latest, biggest, cutting edge TV they could afford. It wasn't a little thing, it was like buying an OLED today. The quality of the media going down is an entirely different matter.
>>107825845>but get blown by any OLEDNot in terms of motion, until you get to 480hz which needs 480fps but it can beat some slower persistence(4-5ms) CRT TVs
>>107825876Yeah not very knowledgable about that but imo 144-240 seems fine for most competitive fps. I guess the downside is the flicker?Oh another upside of some CRT is the built-in speakers: i got one with speakers comparable to some 70-80$ standalone ones But yeah desu newer media is completely fine on an OLED, meanwhile any CRT (if european with scart) will be superior in term of older game/media
>>107825869>the CRT TV's were as large as it was feasible to make.No shit, but the size was small anywaysMost people had 13-20 inch CRTs and didn't care, especially since the bigger CRTs were way too heavyYou're wrong about the restMost people just like today didn't care, they bought the cheapest thing they could find to watch shit on itSure they prioritized the known brands but their concern was getting a well built TV that will last them, it wasn't about video qualityNowadays small TVs are pretty much non-existent, and the content is designed around these behemothsSo normal people now watch stuff on their smartphones, and TVs are mostly bought by retarded enthusiasts Don't be delusional, it was an entirely different time back in the day
>>107825943Honestly 13 inch is pretty for your eyes.19-21 inch is good enough for a single person, 27-32 for 2-3 i guessI say that while having both type, and i can guarantee you that watching a movie on a smaller screen that flicker will give you headache meanwhile you are pain/eye strain free on an OLED ...
>>107825939CRT motion is dependent on the phosphor persistence TVYou can find consumer CRT TVs with 1ms persistence and also ones with 5ms persistence(roughly 200fps equivalent motion)Most PC CRT monitors from late 90s were 1ms(to combat burnin)Flicker was worse in lower refresh rates depending on how short the persistence was, so it was a trade-off between better motion and less flicker. But the public at large never was in the know about these things back then.
>>107826003>and i can guarantee you that watching a movie on a smaller screen that flicker will give you headacheNah, never was a problemI watched movies on a 50hz PAL 20 inch CRT when I was a kidWhen we used to see those blacks bars we used to say ''it's kino time'' Most people watched at a reasonable differenceBut many TV sets had slower phosphors(for example many NTSC tvs had 4ms phosphor and PAL TVs had 5ms phosphor) so the flicker wasn't that bad on thoseWhat I was getting at was there was a time when TV shows were filmed with standard 13-20 inch 4:3 CRTs in mindThat was a simple comfy experience which is now dead and unfortunately never coming back for those of us who have fond memories of those days Those days were over when you could no longer read the text on Dead Rising on CRTs because they made the text too small
>>107826003>>107826068*black bars*reasonable distance
>>107825321No but it is true that old games made use of the limitations to create effects that look cool on those screens but like like ass on LCD/OLED/etc or actually any high resolution CRT, e.g. Believable gradients via dithering, "alpha channel" via intermittent grid masking and many others.
>>107825321She might fit in here>she talks like she thinks faster than she can talk>she stutters>she grabs and point at the tv from potentally unsafe places>she looks kinda autistic (way before it was "cool")... huh an autistic hipster>she looks like she needs a bath
>>107825321No. FUCK CRTs.>>107820429>>107822693
>>107825321No but they look visually charming. Most people don't want CRTs back but they would gladly get something that at least feels like CRT without the shit stuff. This applies to everything retro that is visually charming.
>>107825321she's in her 80s now
>>107825845>now imagine early 2000 LED, or worse LCDno such thingCCFL was the main source of light for LCD screens in the first decade
>>107826741>born 1965>2026 - 1965 = 61why do you lie?
>>107826774He don't math too good
The main thing I really do miss is having no true native resolution. This feature is irreplaceable. Running in a window or scaling ain't it and never will be.
>>107826479If you can't lift a 32" tube it's over man
>Were CRTs really that much better than the displays of today?no. the real question is do you have the ability to remember this answer and not forget it then make the same thread again tomorrow for the billionth time?
>>107827661i only made this thread as an excuse to post Björk.
>>107825321where's the AI edit of her flashing a titty?
>>107825321>>tfw Björk knows more about technology than /g/More like >Tfw you realize 99% is poor brown 3rd Worlders who don't even own a computer
>>107825321In a way yes, colors and blacks were better, no bezels, no light bleed or backlight bleed, no burn ins. It was much easier to buy monitor or TV. Right now it's like playing roulette.
>>107825321crts had more soul, but the picture was definitely not as good. also the viewing angles weren't great, there was a faint flickering, and (at least for me) a really high pitched sound, like tinnitus, whenever i turned ours on
>>107825321>Were CRTs really that much better than the displays of today?in some ways they were. we did get to high definition crt (and that shit was amazing) but the tubes and electronics were so heavy it took two fit men to move the tv - and even then those two men would struggle.>>107825507>when you project your mental collapse on an image board: the postsad cringe>>107828151>no burn ins.>no bezelsfrom the land of fantasy and the make believe. crt had both, zoomy zoomzoom.
Crts are shit and have always been shit. Anyone who says otherwise is either >Fat fuck boomer who can't let go of 1985>Poor 3rd world browns trying to self validation their broken CRT because they're so poor that's all they can afford >Shithead zooms who nostalgia larp That's it.
>>107825321For /vr/ and old /tv/, sure.
>>107825650>in 2 years it was Crysis.I get you man, I lived through the 90s and today? Imagine that Crysis is almost 20 years now and it still looks GOOD even by today's standards. Sure, vidya might not be a good benchmark of all technology progress, but it still shows that we have stalled in some aspects. Hardware is vastly more powerful than in 2007 (although it has stalled in its own way - essentially being just buffed up hardware from mid 2000s) but software didn't follow. Instead of utilizing that power for improvements, developers used it to allow themselves to be more sloppy in their work, releasing shitty code is apparently allowed now because the hardware can make up for it.
>>107825321for motion(games), absolutely.for black levels, until oled it was superior.for reading/creating text, never. a flickerfree lcd is far more comfortable on the eyes. though many use bad pulse width modulation which is worse than crt, you go from rolling scan to staring at a stroboscope. my favorite was the lg flatron 795+, one of the first with a completely flat screen and no annoying two trinitron lines.
