THROW THAT CRT IN THE TRASHhttps://www.lg.com/global/newsroom/news/media-entertainment-solution/lg-electronics-introduces-worlds-first-native-1000hz-full-hd-gaming-monitor/Last excuse to have a crt has been terminated
usecase for anything above 144hz?
Usecase for anything above 60hz?
>>108857593CRTrannyism is just winefaggotry for people without taste buds.
>>108857593Why? What's the use for that?
>>108857593Can you imagine how funny it would be if teh 1000 fake Hz would still smear the image in comparison to CRTs? I think it is probable that it will be like that.
Anything over 24 fps degrades the visual fidelity, films perfected the frame rate a century ago
>>108857593>1080p in 2026xD
>>108857593>1kHz displays'bout time. They've been teasing those for what feels like years now.
what the fuck can even run at 1000hz? half life 2 in a tiny box map? minecraft inside a small cave with low render distance?isn't that screen going to be raped by all the lcd monitor techs not being good enough to push response times below 1ms?
>>108857593>10000hzIt's neither divisible into 24 or 30, wtf is this piece of shit?
I just want a 19-20 inch retro-ish 4:3 FHD monitor with 120Hz for retro vibe.
>>108857593Fuck off LG, make 24" monitors in 4K with high refresh rates.
>>108857793A century ago most films were 60 or 120 fps. 24 was not the default until the 30s.
>>108857915It's not about rendering a game at 1000FPS, which is retarded, it is about the rate at which the current frame is capable of being "cleaned up" of any residual traces of the previous frame. LCD crystals take time to actually fully transition from one frame to the next, which causes a motion blur effect. 1000Hz plus a blur-reduction solution like backlight strobing can create really good motion clarity on a normal LCD screen, better than OLED (strobing destroys OLED, it can't be done) and nearly as good as a CRT. The only problem is that only OLED can produce good black levels, but only very-high-refresh-rate LCD screens with blur-reduction tech can produce good motion clarity.
>>108857935I want an updated 120Hz+ DualUp since we're here wishing (with maybe a remote to switch the audio and stuff around a little quicker).>19-20 inch retro-ish 4:3 FHD monitor No 120Hz, but check out Arcooda.
>>108857593>1080pEmbarrassing.
>>108857930Does it even matter at that point?
>>108857593>1080pLower resolution than my CRT>1000hzNo game I play reaches that; most of my games are 60hz locked>IPSWorse picture quality than my CRTThis esports ewaste would literally be a downgrade from my tube in every way except aspect ratio
What if monitors one day used fiber optic instead of DisplayPort or HDMI for such high frequencies?
>>108857593>1000Hz>But retarded shitty 16:9, because fuck youWE WANT 3:2, why is it so hard for them to understand?
>>108857593>1080pinto le trash
>>108858431You're not daily driving a CRT, stop LARPing for attention and go wash your ass.
>>108858517You're absolutely correct, I don't waste the precious lifetime of my valuable CRTs on desktop nonsense. I have a fleet of IPS panels for that. But all games I exclusively play on my CRTs.
>>108857593>THROW THAT CRT IN THE TRASHuhm, no sweetie. thats not how it worksyou'll need 1000 FPS to get the motion clarity of CRTs at 60 FPS
>>108858793you retarded? crts don't invent new informationlook up crt shaders
The eye can't see any faster than 1080p
>>108857593>50 terabits a secondgood luck!
>>108858816harsh truth
You can't even make a 120 hz monitor that doesn't look like blurry shit in motion, how do you expect me to believe that you can 8x that? Wow 8 times the blur. No thanks.
>>108858802You don't understand sample&hold motion blur.Your eye wants to smoothly tracks motion it sees. In real life your eye is able to stabilize most predictable motion in a way that makes light from that object hit the same cells on your retina over a long period of time. This is how we are able to see things in motion clearly.On an LCD/OLED panel, this breaks. On these monitors, motion is not continuous; it stays still for eg 16ms and teleports forward. When your eye attempts to track this motion, the object effectively vibrates at 60hz on your retina, which makes it impossible to see it clearly.CRTs and Plasmas get around this in a "happy accident" kind of way. On these displays, any part of the frame is illuminated for mere microseconds with an incredibly bright flash. No matter how fast your eye moves, a stationary microsecond-scale flash can't blur. And as your eye tracks the motion, those flashes always happen on the same spot on your retina. And better yet, due to your persistence of vision and the sheer brightness of the flash, the image is effectively burned on to your retina for the duration the frame isn't there. Your eye is effectively carrying the picture with it. You are literally seeing information that isn't there. Which makes>you retarded? crts don't invent new informationkind of funny.
>>108858903>When your eye attempts to track this motion, the object effectively vibrates at 60hz on your retina, which makes it impossible to see it clearly.This bit might be a little tough for the some to comprehend, hope this vid from rtings visualizes it betterAlso worth noting, as the refresh rate increases, the frequency of the teleports increases, and the distance the object "vibrates" reduces. At a high enough refresh rate this will start to again approximate reality. Usually like 1000-2000hz is considered fast enough to look real again. But CRTs achieve that life-like motion at just 60hz, which is utterly hilarious.
>>108857593not to spat fight about screen tech, but blacklevels matter more
>>108858997Retarded webm. No one plays games or watches movies on a moving monitor
>>108859078This board is legit filled with 60iq thirdies. Sample&hold blur filters so much of /g/ it's insane.
>>108858903Yeah you don't even attempt to mention phosphor persistence I think this post is pseudo and ignorable, that or your ewaste has degraded to the point where it's basically a black sheet in daylight and that *technically* reduces motion blur to near nothing, fantastic
>>108857593there is literally no point in going past 600Hz
>>108857930yeah i'm sure it's not like a monitor like this has VRR or anything like that... retardplus yeah it doesn't really matter when one frame every 15 seconds is off by 0.1 milliseconds you know
>>108859128>phosphor persistenceThe fraction of a nit the afterglow emits is practically invisible next to the 10,000 nit microsecond flash. You can safely ignore phosphor trails in this discussion.
>>108859000>100% 500 nits brightness in a completely pitch black roomevery time.
>>108859163>it doesn't really matter when one frame every 15 seconds is off by 0.1 milliseconds you knowpeasant
>>108859128>>108859170Also we have benchmark pics like these engineered to simulate what you'd see as closely as possible. Trails are there, but they're an insignificant artifact next to sample&hold blur.
>>108858903so have you seen crt shaders on an oled or are you just guessing?
4K is the gold standard now. Most indies I get 144fps-200fps+ in games with a 9070XT.We already solved the motion blur problem with strobing with pulsar and its only a matter of time until AMD released their copycat.Its not as good as CRT, but its good enough at 144hz as in it wont make a huge difference in your gaming experience anymore.Now its just getting OLED super bright and the next gen of 5090 tier GPU's for AMD, just in time for linux gaming.
>>108859249I've owned OLEDs, CRTs, IPSs, VAs, TNs .... Everything under the sun. Except a Plasma.>crt shadersThese do nothing for motion. And the CRTs I use are high-res (1200p-1536p) PC monitors that don't have a TV like texture to them. They have static picture quality somewhere between LCDs and OLEDs, and motion superior to both. There's nothing to "emulate" with a shader. You can NOT emulate superior technology with an inferior one.Friends P1130 in picrel.If you don't believe me that sample&hold blur is a real effect there's countless resources on the subject https://blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/
>>108859120>This board is legit filled with 60iqYeah I agree. Since you clearly replied to a bait post
>>108859481
>>108858903A 1000Hz LCD might actually be fast enough to emulate a CRT's strobing, leaving the actual image up for only a single millisecond. Me personally, I'm interested to see how this thing will perform.
>>108859509Desuhonest I think the board has such bad quality because people keep replying to bait posts/flame war threads. If we just stopped giving the retards attention they would go away
>>108859577Your contrast ratio will be become like 10:1. Blacks on an LCD glow. Software BFI on LCDs is not viable.
>>108857593no no no trintroon sisters? Who will buy this CRT I paid $1000 for now!?
>>108858267>A century ago most films were 60 or 120 fpsFalse.
>>108859202>Adaptive-sync 60 fpsDo you think comparing LCDs to CRTs, apple to apple style makes any sense? Modern OLED displays, most of which are 240hz and above, all but solved motion blur in tandem with numerous other advantages.
>>108857593Now we just need a gpu that can render at 1000fps. Oh wait.
>>108860235>240hz oledEven if your game can run at 240fps it's still wont come close to CRTs. But even worse, an absolute fuckton of games are 60hz, particularly the countless massively popular 2d indie titles. With CRTs you don't have to decide between motion blur and maxing out graphics settings in AAA games either. You get so much flexibility with resolution too.It's kind of absurd of ideal CRT tech is for games.
>1000hz + https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/IMAGINE>>108860261I get that much fps in Minecraft on the new Vulkan renderer
>>108860261my 7900xtx gets 800fps on old games, it also coil whines like crazy if you don't cap the refresh rate to like 144hz
>>108857593picked up a free big sony wega crt from an abandoned house someone cleaned up on the side of the road that works pretty good. haha fuck you scalpers not paying 300 bucks
>>108860324>IMAGINEIt's an 1000:1 LCD. If you software BFI that your contrast ratio drops to like something unusable like 10:1. You allow the monitor to display whites only for a fraction of what it could, but because it's an LCD the blacks are always glowing, utterly crushing your contrast ratio. It'll be literally unusuable.
>>108860363Okay but this will be on OLEDs by next year
>>108860374Enjoy your 18 nits
>>108858903>Ah! Let's film with the lights off, in a darkened room!
>>108860324>On Low.
Use case for 1000hz ?
>>108860439Nah dude download the new snapshots and switch it to Vulkan in the settings, it's pretty crazy how performant it is over the old OpenGL stuff.
>>108860314The game doesn't need to run at 240fps to benefit from a higher refresh rate, you can just hold a single gpu frame for four display frames and get all the benefits of a higher refresh display with no additional compute, you lack basic understanding how displaying pictures using a computer works.We have solved the issue, RTINGS said so gave it 9.6/10 for motion clarity, I trusted them cause they publish their results and are reliable, bought a nice unit and yeah it's perfect. I really don't understand what you get from spamming the same album of ancient images every thread about displays. CRTs are never coming back because they're garbage end of story.
>>108860522>you can just hold a single gpu frame for four display frames and get all the benefits of a higher refresh displayThat's completely wrong.With sample&hold OLED, there's ZERO difference between a 60hz display displaying 60fps and a 240hz display displaying 60fps. You could record it with a high speed camera and you'd see literally nothing be different.You don't seem to understand how sample&hold blur works at all either (read >>108858903)
>>108860522>>108860551Oh and with CRTs you get awful double-imaging if you do this
>>108857696if youre a tranny that plays competitive games like valorant. other than that 0
>have a high refresh rate monitor>"You should turn off Vsync in the game menuWhy should I turn off Vsync?
>>108857842Cope.>>108857930This. 600Hz is the magic number.
>>108860615Lower latency. Letting new information get flipped on screen mid scanout (so called tear) will always achieve the lowest possible latency.
>>108860615latency but we all have people here with grandma tier reflexes and 125-250hz controllers & mouses.
>>108860615ideally you want driver vsync on + game fps cap.driver prevents the gpu from tripping on its own pacing.game cap prevents the latency penalty and unreal engine games get a crap ton smoother as the game thread is now properly paced instead of spamming cpu0.
>>108857593Nobody needs this shit.Only nostalgia fags think they "need" it.
>>108857593does it have the fake CRT strobe?
>>108860615Valve says not tohttps://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/418E-7A04-B0DA-9032
I only play bf1942 and I play in 4k on a 60hz monitor. My PC can put out like over 200 fps, and I noticed that as long as I let it do that, 60fps is fine. If I stick it to 60fps it looks like shitIdk why but my plasma seems to have the same effect as led I hate my sister so much, she threw out my fucking CRT
>>108860769fps affects taa quality. 60fps taa looks worse than 200fps taa.
>>108858903Brutal mogging
>>108857696double-buffered animations are good enough for me. 48 Hz master race
>>108860685>you don't need better technology just accept things can only get worse
>>108861095Things can only get worse
>>108860615>>108860673Ideally, you shouldn't need caps at all. Double buffered V-sync with no queuing ensures good frame pacing with very little latency.In practice, you'll need triple buffering to avoid low GPU utilization, which does add some latency.
>>108859580I thought the retards were the ones falling for obvious bait
>>108857661coping for bad skills
>>108857593Finally! My AMD will show its full power!!!
>>108857930The number is a sales tactic. 1000 sounds more impressive than 1024, especially since 1024 is an older resolution
>>108860261The extreme coil whine will be CRT-like
>>108859479He's referring to this https://github.com/blurbusters/crt-beam-simulatorIt's also built into retroarch as a shaderTry https://github.com/blurbusters/crt-beam-simulator on a 360hz+ OLED and it looks great. The problem is many OLEDs right now aren't bright enough, in a few years will will be close.
>>108863452OLED and brightness don't mix, it rapes the pixel lifespan
>>108857930you know that doesnt matter? or that you can set it to 960hz or whatever the fuck you want
>>108857593Sweet, my 5070ti will be useful now. Most its had is no mans sky and rdr2
>not 1080p 1080hzWHAT WERE THEY THINKING
See I personally don't like CRTs all that much, but it's sad how many fps you need to render to get similar motion clarity to just 60 on a CRT. Motion clarity being tied to something that requires so much fucking power that even a 5090 isn't capable of handling with anything other than older games or competitive nonsense is a real problem
>>108860720Valve also has a frame limiter that adds considerable latency on the deck and they haven't fixed this for a long time. MangoHUD fps limiter is just much better.
>>108857793This 100000xThe problem is that computers, for some stupid reason (read: programmers), don't bake motion blur into each frame.
>>108858903interesting how you illustrated your pseudoscience with a motion picture laundered through a cmos sensor that behaves just like an lcd would.intra-pixel motion "blur" does not manifest the way you've presented it and you know this.>>108860551bfi solves this. it solves this by making the screen as dark as your ewaste is.
>>10885769672hz is preferable if you also watch a lot of movies and stuff, being a multiple of 24.Nowadays it's easiest to just get>>108857661
>>108857593This is only useful to CS2 players that play for money.
>>108865528>yet another retard that understands judder but doesn't understand that VRR exists...why?
>>108865940VRR always comes with issues. Not worth imo
>>108864186I couldn't understand a single thing you said
>>108865948...such as?it literally just works
>>108865956stupid
>>108865966I'm more than happy to argue with you, but I don't understand what you're arguing, is it some specific detail you disagree with me or the whole premise of sample&hold motion blur? What do you mean with "infra-pixel motion blur"? And I can assure you, everyone who owns a CRT monitor will tell you the difference in motion clarity exactly as depicted in the video, if not even clearer.
you never get any proper discussion on /g/ for high performance peripherals the uncs are just happy with their 125hz wired mouse and 60hz monitors
my computer doesnt even get 60 fps in the games i do play, which are not competitive. and i dont watch movies/tv. why do i need a 1000hz monitor?
>>108866008intra-pixel. you are arguing that the eye has enough resolution to know this. it is pseudoscience because you came up with a garbage explanation for a real metric.
>>108866103On a 60hz display, with motion moving at 960px/s (default settings in https://testufo.com/), the UFO teleports forward every 16 pixels. When your eye stabilizes the motion, what it sees is an UFO vibrating by 16 pixels at 60hz. That's 16 pixels of blur. That's not intra-pixel. You can see this effect yourself. If you keep your eyes still by looking at eg the stationary text above it, you can kind of see that the UFO is clear in your near peripheral vision. But the second you look at the UFO itself it becomes blurred. This is the sample&hold blur effect exactly as I described. If you don't believe me, believe your own eyes. On a CRT this blur does not exist, and you are able to see the UFO at perfect clarity, it looks the exact same as if it were still.
>>108866205nothing you said relates to the sample and hold effect. you've only explained motion blur itself. this vibrate nonsense you keep going about is completely unfounded if it even made sense to begin with.
>>108866237I literally have no clue what your issue is. I literally have to guess and project some nonsense argument to reply to you. Try to make a coherent argument or something?>this vibrate nonsense you keep going about is completely unfounded if it even made sense to begin with.That's the best way to explain what's happening? See this webm >>108858997It should not be *this* difficult to comprehend the dynamics here.Nothing is *actually* vibrating, it's the projected picture on your retina (or camera sensor, the effect works exactly the same) that is vibrating.
>>108866278maybe you expect me to take your retarded ass theory at face value. but I'm not having a great time trying to guess at how your bullshit about oscillation is going to explain how the eye perceives motion and its clarity. you have got a real subjective metric of motion clarity, a scalar value of human judgment that means nothing outside of what you ascribe to it, apparently schizophrenically.
>>108866304It's not my theoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_motion_blurThere's even a wikipedia article that explains it more-or-less like I did. >about oscillation is going to explain how the eye perceives motion and its clarity. 1. Motion blur happens when the projection of an object moves across a stationary sensor (eye or a camera, works the same)2. No matter how fast an object moves, if your eye can stabilize it and predict its motion, you can see it with perfect sharpness 3. Your eye isn't fast enough to stabilize an oscillating thing -> see 1.
>>108866355that whole article is written in uncharacteristically unprofessional language and either the wastes of life admins aren't yet privy to this article or it is precisely because they're wastes of life that they let this article slide, if not written by one of them themselves. the whole cause section has zero references. all the other cites are how various marketing departments define motion blur. what a joke of an article.
>>108866382I asked chatgpt to find articles on this for youhttps://us.ktcplay.com/blogs/technology-hub/what-is-sample-and-hold-blurhttps://blurbusters.com/article-on-why-some-oleds-have-motion-blur/https://blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/You probably should just spend some time with a clanker on the subject. I've done everything I could trying to explain the effect. Or buy a CRT or go to your local arcade and see for yourself
can a company make one of these in 16:10?
>>108857593Why would I buy a 1080p monitor when I could buy a 4k monitor instead?
>>108866441you are such a fucking faggot. can't even make the time to make your own argument. no wonder you rep a crt. looking at just that blatantly llm written first article because it sounds like a better source than the other one:>That distinction matters because sample-and-hold blur is not the same thing as ghosting.>Sample-and-hold blur comes from frame persistence.>Ghosting comes from slow or poorly controlled pixel transitions.>A monitor can improve one and still struggle with the other.>This is why a display can have a fast advertised response time and still look blurrier in motion than another model with similar headline specs.that's the only thing your garbage free tier gpt gave you of any note. it tells me that bfi works because lcd's main issue is ghosting and bfi solves that elegantly. persistence blur still sounds like a total scam to me, and even if santa claus were real it doesn't make your oscillation bullshit any more based in reality.it quotes https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2011.2109728 , you get me that pdf and maybe you'll start making your shitty point.
>>108866503Why did you post this stupid question when the selling point of this monitor is the refresh rate and not the resolution
>>108866510> can't even make the time to make your own argument. >>108858903 >>108858903 >>108858903 >>108858903
>>108866588to make your own argument with regards to PROVIDING EVIDENCE for your outlandish claims, retard.drop me that pdf and we'll continue. evidently this topic matters a lot to you, because you're so autistic. surely you're curious if the paper actually talks about persistence blur and not just ghosting.
>>108866603>PROVIDING EVIDENCEThe thread is literally full of benchmark pics and videos about the effectObserve video.How does a series of perfectly sharp frames turn into a continuous blur once the camera attempts to track the motion? This happens on LCDs and OLEDs all the same.This is literally the effect I described in and you ignored >>108866205>You can see this effect yourself. If you keep your eyes still by looking at eg the stationary text above it, you can kind of see that the UFO is clear in your near peripheral vision. But the second you look at the UFO itself it becomes blurred.
I don't care about refresh rate. Only lowlifes care about frame rates more than 60. I want retina pixel density. I do REAL work in my computer, and pixel density is a far more important factor for that.
>>108863452I have a 360hz monitor and I've been fucking around with this thing in RAIt makes my display go nuts. Very dark, which I understand, but most of the time it will just glitch out and show a lot of distortion.
>>108857593I mean i wouldn't need more than 500hz ever, but have fun i guess.
>>108866671You are not the target demographic for this monitor, larper
if you have to enable DSC then your monitor is shit.
>>108866671how many pixels does one man need
>>108866659I'm not watching laundered garbage, retard. how does this explain the kooky oscillation theory anyway?send the pdf, or any other pet study you prefer. or maybe make a youtube essay on your massive discovery.
when are we getting qd oled monitors for 100 bucks? I don't care about gaming shit, I just want a nice monitor which gets the job done. Nothing more. Currently using an AliExpress 60 bucks KTC monitor.
>>108866917>PROVIDE EVIDENCE>GIVE ARGUMENT<gives arguments and evidence>I'M NOT WATCHING OR READING YOUR GARBAGE
>>108866964you are a fucking faggot for acting so obtuse yet you laugh at me for taking you seriously. whatever, you've already well proved yourself to be a low functioning autist atp. troon out already if you haven't.
>>108866992I'm sorry you got filtered by basic descriptions of motion blur
>>108867019I got filtered by your autism. those in tech know this feeling well
>>108866933try next decade or so. 1440p qd oleds in 2036 will be the 2016 1440p cheap korean panels.
>>108867030>your autismBut you got filtered by the numerous articles I sent to you too
Could be used for one of those spinning volumetric displays
>>108867050get checked for autism. it might net you easy neetbux
>>108858903So why can I see the difference between LCD and CRT in this webm when I'm viewing both on an LCD?
>>108867067I accept your concession
>>108858802No, he's right. If you display 60FPS on your 1000Hz LCD panel you still get 60FPS levels of motion blur. If you actually want to reduce motion blur, then you actually need to display a new, different frame each refresh cycle. Running the monitor extremely fast while the actual frame rendering is 10x slower or something will not get you 1000Hz-tier motion clarity.
>>108867083it is impossible to concede to an autist. in the miniscule chance that you aren't I still have not gotten my pdf.
>>108867078Because the motion is neutralized by the recording. Nothing is ideally moving on your display.This is like asking "can I get blinded by a video of a laser".
>>108860522>you can just hold a single gpu frame for four display frames and get all the benefits of a higher refresh display with no additional computeThis is incorrect. The motion blur you perceive is proportional to the length of time the same image is displayed on sample & hold screens. If you have a 20000Hz sample & hold monitor but actually only display 60FPS then you get motion blur proportional to your 60FPS, so in other words a whole lot.If you want to actually reduce motion blur on your over 9000Hz monitor then you actually need to run at over 9000FPS.
>>108867104All right. But this isn't quite the same as a video of a laser, because a monitor is not displaying the laser at the same brightness it would be in real life, nor is it emitting anything in the invisible spectrum like the laser would be emitting (...hopefully). The picture is not "moving" on the monitor, but the pixels are changing color to pretend the objects on the screen are moving from one side to the other, which my eyes do need to be able to focus on. Does that mean if my head is stationary I will track movement equally well on LCD and CRT, and the effect is only noticeable when moving head/eyes?
>>108867100If being able to engage with basic descriptions of reality is considered autism, so be it
>>108860637If you're at 1kHz refresh rate like this new monitor you can probably just leave VSync on. I mean VSync adds a frame (or maybe a few frames) of extra input lag but at 1kHz a frame is just 1ms. You're not going to perceive a difference if the input lag is 1ms or 2ms or 3ms higher.Obviously at low refresh rate a single refresh cycle is way longer, so even a single frame of input lag may be noticeable to some people.
>>108867157No anonBecause the motion was cancelled out by the recorder's camera, the motion performance of YOUR monitor does not get involved at any point. If instead of the camera, it was your eyes tracking the UFO on the recorded displays, you'd be seeing exactly what the video shows you.
can you make a separate thread about the ips monitor but without the schizo spam
>>108867169leading indicator of autism is being too autistic to recognize the folly of autism. with every other mental illness the people who have it retain the ability to recognize and know how they're fucked up
>>108867418You're literally conceding that you got filtered and this subject is too "autistic" for you?
>>108866510You're completely retarded and ignorant and yet you proudly persist rather than learning something new even when it is explained to you and extra material on the subject is provided.Why the hell are people like this? Is this active refusal to improve and to learn something new part & parcel to being a low IQ moron or something?
Im not going to read the schizo babble but heres common ways people improve le image they see1st buy a 4k 240hz qd oled. Then buy a 2-3k € pc to run games at 240hz with nvidia mfg. This will look pretty clean and nice for the average consumer.cs2 pros can buy : 1440p ips pulsar monitor and get better image clarity thanks to bfi that works with vrr. But its not for normies since ips contrast icky. this 1k hz monitor is a bit redundant now.Hopefully in the future these 2 technologies combine and we get infinite contrast with bfi.
Esports titles can't even hit 1k fps
Crt is superior. You can't deny the science.
>>108869315Opinions are science now?
Why hasn't a major manufacturer tried reviving CRTs? The demand and use case is clearly there if this sort of retardation justified the R&D costs.
>>108869726the flatscreen jew
>>108860618i have a 240hz 1440p now but my next and final will be 600divisible by 24/25/30/50/60/120, perfection
>>108869315Nah, CRTs are inferior in a vast majority of use cases. They are museum pieces. >Actual CRT-fag not the Nu-CRT posers
>>108870396>Actual CRT-fag not the Nu-CRT posersPost your CRTs
>>108857593I can't buy this screen, but the CRT was like 20 dollars.
>>108859172Pitch black room is a valid usecase.That said, IPS in such photos always look brighter than they actually are IRL.
>>108857593Not even a variable hz that matches the individual receptors of the eye 1:1.Complete shit.
>>108857935>4:3Never again, sorry. They just don't make them anymore. It's all new old stock lcds slapped onto generic boards.
Fuck any of this argument over crts and lcds, where are the hi-def non standard aspect ratio monitors?Give me a modern 5:4 with resolution greater than 1280x1024, ips, oled, whatever. If it isn't 16:9 or ultrawide they literally don't exist anymore. I don't think you can even get modern 16:10 monitors
Actual CRT televisions are easier on the eyes than computer screens because the phospor seems to be slower.Also they're pretty good to play oldass 2D games with actually good motion quality (instead of cringe overdrives that leave ghosting or blurry motion)
>>108870620after some extensive research I have found uhd, full color 5:4 monitors do in fact exist and they are exclusively used for mammography with a fittingly medical price2560x2048 pixels, full srgb IPS. The ultimate titty viewing machine, all it costs is 5 grand
>>108857696Not being poor.
>>108870777That's nuts
>>108870894They're tits
>>108870620>>108870777BenQ makes nice 3:2 monitors (3840x2560). The only complaints with my RD280U is that the firmware is kinda shit (causes more problems than it solves if you use some of the features) and the screen is really hard to clean because of the textured, matte coating (which does work fantastic). They just refreshed the model line to 120Hz too.
>>108867482the subject is not. as I have shown I have done more research on this topic than you have at this point, given that all you've ever done is post a list of search results as given to you by a chat bot.
>>108867565you don't have to be mad enough to double post just because I stopped responding to you. my response is no u btw.
>>108867087retard alert
Might the person who made this be around? If so, I was wondering if you know how VA compares.
>>108857593shut up you queer, I have been gaming on old TVs longer than you or your obese mother have been alive. All games before 2005 were designed for CRTs. I don't give a fuck who else uses them or doesn't. Some of us have jobs and can dedicate a floor of the house to our bars and game collections with huge CRTs to match our huge balls.
>>108873305that was some niggas random shitposting chart
>>108857696you can definitely tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz.beyond that I cannot say, it's all probably marginal.
