Why did we stop using CRT monitors and TVs?
lcds are more bigger and more cheaperer.normal people don't care about anything else
RoHS, CRTs have lead in the glass. That and you can ship 10 LCDs in the space of a CRT and it's lighter too.
>>109625288CRT hurts your eyes
>>109625288Because it gave you AIDS
It was too good so they decided we can't have it.
>>109625288Nobody bothers with your bait on /vr/?>>>/vr/12775136
>>109625288Talk for yourself.
because I like perfect pixels.
Because they realized we weren't buying a new one every couple of years.
>>109625288They sucked ass. Couldn't scale and they were heavy also took a lot of space. Going flat was surreal. The aesthetic sure was charming in retrospect
>>109625288They were obsolete in the vast majority of use cases. Not even die-hard, videophiles held-on once competing solutions were on par for vast majority of use cases.
>>109625288In this day and age, CRTs are only good for (retro) gaming and not much more.
>>109625288I own 3 CRT monitors, I am one of those deluded CRT-tards. They still kick LCD ass to this today in some ways. they're not perfect tho:>tube's wears out around 14000 hours>geometry/linearity/convergence/focus issues off-centre>needs complex correction circuits>electron guns' cathode surface unevenly wears>causes black crush (gamma increases <10%IR) + white balance shift after few thousand hours>low resolution / smearing of image detailz due to aliasing from aperture/shadow-mask above Nyquist's frequency>blooming caused by secondary electrons exciting nearby phosphors>garbage 80:1 ANSI contrast>soft X-Ray emissions>low luminance (100 nits factory, drops to 50 after 12000 hours)>unuseable in bright offices>garbage ANSI contrast of 80:1>long green phosphor decay time leads to motion trails>display size limitations imposed by deflection circuit or weight limit (21" max monitors, 32" TVs max)
>>109625288maximizing profits.shipping a 30kg monitor across the globe is quite expensive. not too mention taking up more space while doing so compared to a flatscreen.regardless i'm enjoying my 150" crt setup.
>be me>playing My Summer Car on my CRTs>170fps, tube at 85hz>while in vehicles, notice double-image artifacts and micro stutters in motion>no such issues when CRT is at 60hzSo it turns out the physics engine operates at a fixed 60hz without interpolation, leading to an effective 60fps cap while in vehicles via repeated identical frames.Literally nobody on LCDs or OLEDs with vastly higher refresh rates than my CRT has or could ever notice this, because motion on them is smeary sample&hold dogshit regardless.Curious turn of events. And then CRT haters constantly lash out against the 60hz CRT-vs-OLED comparisons as "irrelevant".Another popular 3d game that looks clean only on a 60hz CRT.
>>109628588Yeah, unless FPS = Refresh, you'll get double images. Also a problem if it's lower. Known problem with CRTs that most people overlook.
>>109628613No you get double images only if FPS<HZ.With FPS>HZ you just get standard tearing and reduced latency.>Known problem with CRTs that most people overlook.Motion on CRTs looks poor only if FPS<HZMotion on LCD/OLED looks poor ALWAYS
I grew up playing CS etc. on a CRT and i still gave that up once some OK ish 24" 60Hz IPS could be bought.I knew it had something like 30-50ms of input lag too.It was just that much nicer in normal desktop use.
>>109628634>No you get double images only if FPS<HZ.>With FPS>HZ you just get standard tearing and reduced latency.Nope. Run a game at 30 FPS on a 60 Hz CRT and come back. I play old PC games on VGA CRTs daily.
>>109628634>>109628646Nvm I'm blind, yeah, cap your FPS at the refresh.
>>109628025Fair play. At least you can admit it. I horde a lot of old stuff but CRTs I can't be arsed with.
>>109625288because they're huge and not in the right dimension.
>>109625288I dont know if it was the shitty TV that i saw, but to my eyes that are used to 120Hz screens, CRT is very flickery and hard to watchthat said, there are now laser-scanning projectors that basically work same as CRT,Anybeam UP is one of those, but its very dim like 23 lumens unusable pretty muchi think this technology can be made better, this guy literally uses laser scanning display to create a shitty holographic image, a CRT beam could make a 3D image far superior https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrfBjRp61iY
>>109628637everyone wanted smaller size, CRT was too bulky, and then once wide screen came out, it completely killed CRT, wide screen was over everything. I am right now using an ultrawide G9 49" and cannot imagime life without it, that said, if i had space, i would definitely hunt myself down a nice wide screen CRT, I am surprised such old tech doesnt get revamped, huge business opportunity, just buy old piece of shit factory and restore production, with AI should be very easy to modernize also
>>109625369I think this is the reason I am wearing glasses now
>>109628588>Literally nobody on LCDs or OLEDs with vastly higher refresh rates than my CRT has or could ever notice this, because motion on them is smeary sample&hold dogshit regardless.>>109628634>Motion on LCD/OLED looks poor ALWAYSDude never seen Pulsar.
>>109628025I mean, I appreciate the good-faith posting, but I have anecdotes that contradict yours>tube's wears out around 14000 hoursI have a Sony GDM-F520 with 13000 hours and it looks and measures brand new. >low luminance (100 nits factory, drops to 50 after 12000 hours)120 nits factory 120 nits nowGranted, these units are literally alien technology for their time and have digital wear sensing and compensation similar to what modern OLEDs do with detecting pixel current and wear leveling based off that. But CRTs can't lie about their age when you look at their uniformity, and this one's immaculate.
>>109628762>PulsarSame shit different nameULMB, LightBoost, MPRT, ELBM, BenQ DyAC ...We've had this strobing trickery as long as LCDs have been a thing, but it's always nigh unusable sub-par garbage in one way or another compared to CRTs. There are a few rare exceptions from out-of-production historical archives, like the Viewsonic XG2431, but as a rule it's just garbage.
>>109625288They send children to the hospital by falling on them, so burgers with children can't use them without going bankrupt
>>109628025I own 30 crts.The tubes themselfs really never wear out.I have CRTs with 30k hours that are flawless.The only issue is flybacks/capacitors failing.Dead Flybacks are common on alot of model, and you wont be able to find a spare>>109628802hi faggot>120 nits factory 120 nits nowThats nothing impressive, the issue is that you have to push an old tube harder to reach that brightness which leads to lower sharpnessLate end CRT tubes hardly wear out anywaysThis P1110 of mine has a Linux Taskbar burned in and was used from 2000 untill around 2017 and after DAS it reaches 140 nits and looks great
>>109628845>same shit different nameCould have said you're clueless from the start.
>>109628688Indeed, they kinda are PITA, but I'm still quite enthusiastic about them. In display tech discussions, there ought to be less extreme opinions, as there is no ultimate display. I can rant about OLEDs and LCDs too. Backlight strobing in LCDs has only become mainstream as of recently. I blame the "flicker free" bs that all LCD manufacturers pushed for in the early 2000s.
>>109628762>>109628956The anon you're replying to doesn't even have a clue about CRTs yet alone panelsSee>>109628802>>109628954
>>109628960>I blame the "flicker free" bs that all LCD manufacturers pushed for in the early 2000s.It's true though, for office use LCDs were godsend, a 60Hz LCD will never hurt as much compared to even a 85Hz CRT. Gamers were a second hand market from the start.
>>109625288They had many disadvantages
>>109628998weak eye.
>>109629018>t. zoomer who never had to work behind a mediocre CRT for 8 hours a day with text
>>109629040>never had to work behind a mediocre CRT for 8 hours a day with textsucks to be a wageslave corponigger
>>109629057Yet many people are. So >>109628998 is correct.
>>109628802I'm referring to the luminance decrease if one didn't increase the video amplifier gain to compensate. Your anecdote is quite impressive, but contrast had to have been adjusted for it to maintain 120 nits after 12K hours. The tube in my pic is >18K hours, no more than 74 nits with contrast max'd. Yes, the 'constant brightness' feature on some monitors is quite cool, I think they adjust the cutoff-bias automatically like you said. The image of any high-hours CRT is softer though, despite any compensations, due to uneven cathode wearing. The outer parts contribute more to emission, leading to worse focus, something that adjusting focusing grid potentials won't improve.
>>109629076the opinion of the cattle are not relevant.jokes aside, nah crt flicker above 75hz doesnt bother me>>109629111You are very correct my friend, but 74 nits with contrast maxxed indicates an issue, not regular wear.Maybe g2 has drifted low over the years?Maybe contrast max is set wrong in the service menu?Many possible options >image is softer on high hour crtsMy 30k hour Diamondtron is the sharpest CRT I have.So I dont know about that
>>109628998Yes, I agree. For office work, LCDs over CRT, that's when flicker free isn't bs, for normal work. I got used to 60Hz flicker on a CRT when my mum nicked my LCD. I found the blurriness far worse than the flicker.>gamersanyone watching colourful media too
>>109629222I am not sure on the hours, only a guess, as I got it from the same place as a 13K hours Mitz which had higher luminance. It was in a state, colours all green brown, major black crush. I had to adjust cutoff by a lot, and bump G2 a bit.>My 30k hour Diamondtron is the sharpest CRT I have.Same! It's a Diamondtron NF tube, the most worn I have, but still the sharpest of the 3. however, the sharpness comparison is only valid for the same tube model. My others are>13K hours budget Mitz 93SB 96KHz>2K hours Samsung 95KHzYou have a very good monitor. Hope it lasts you for many more years.
Because they have terrible image quality, take up a ton of space, use a ton of power and are very limited in terms of resolution.
>>109626628>comparing glass to glossy lcd coatingCRT blacks are fucking shit too
>>109629322>Same! It's a Diamondtron NF tube, the most worn I have, but still the sharpest of the 3Mitsubishi was the absolute peak of crts
>>109625369>>109628749I started off with LCDs in 2005 and apart from occasional exposure to CRTs I still have good vision
>>109628025This is bait of exquisite quality.By mixing true claims with retarded lies you give the impression of arguing in good faith when you're actually a vile faggot. Kudos!
>>109629391It's pretty obvious though, hence why I didn't even bother replying to the wear hours. Only a moron would fall for it after reading it for more than 10 seconds.
>>109629391crt threads blur the border between bait and retardation
>>109629391I have stated pure facts. You get ragebaited by physics? Well, I can't stop you believing your delusions, CRT-tard.>>109629404>Only a moronAnother one spotted.
>>109625288I did because they're heavy and takes up more space
>>109629464Most CRTards are in a superposition of bait and retardation themselves.
>>109629538>The vile faggot reveals itself!Nothing to it.
>>109629561t. desk manufacturer about to sell you a smaller and less robust desk for the same price
>>109629619Maketh thy tongue speak of the 'truth' then. Point out my wrongs.
People kept them for a very long time and price was really low even on the largest models.There was nothing making the cattle run out and buying a new one every couple years.You can'y have this
>>109629674There were also TV repair shops in every town
I love using CRTs but also remember switching to LCD as soon as I could afford it. The availability of them in my area has gone down significantly. All I see on FB marketplace anymore are collectors trying to hock their tubes for shitty prices; as they have grown tired of the hobby but are still out of touch with reality. Next best thing would be 1080p plasmas which can still be found in relative abundance.
>>109630024>1080p plasmas which can still be found in relative abundance.They do?Last ones I saw were in shops when they were still being sold, since they put out a lot of heat they're probably cooked now
>>1096300751080p (true) 60Hz plasma is great and people want to get rid of them contantlygot mine for 25 yuro
>>109625288I just bought a 32" 6K IPS LCD with full AdobeRGB and DCI P3 coverage.
>>109629342>CRT blacks are fucking shit tooCRT blacks are actually black like OLED, unless you are a brown thirdie and had a budget e-waste jvc set
PC CRTs became obsolete when the Eizo L565 was released in 2002. It was an IPS LCD with full sRGB support.
Lmao CRTroons can't even agree between themselves.
>>109630075I still frequently see them on FB marketplace and also at Goodwill. Contrast is about as good as a decent VA panel and motion performance is better than LCD. Later models are less prone to burn-in
>>109630117Can you link a tutorial for that hack you are doing?Its to reset black level right?
>>109630024Is Plasma even worth considering? Dont they wear out with use like OLED does?
>>109630159>Its to reset black level right?Yeah.>Can you link a tutorial for that hack you are doing?Google, it was a while ago, don't have it saved. Depends on your specific model too.
>>109628954>tube themselfs really never wear out>only issue is flybacks/capacitorsOther way. longevity's limiting factor is the cathodes being used up. In the office, give 4-7 years of usage (9:00 to 17:00), or 11000-15000 hours, tubes would be replaced, as it's around the time as the decay time to half-luminance. For CAD work or hospital imaging, it'd be ~2-3 years. OLEDs are functionally a similar type of e-waste, except they actually last 3-4 times longer. Most CRT monitors had 50000-75000 hour MTBF excluding the tube for obvious reasons.>push an old tube harder to reach that brightness which leads to lower sharpnessI agree, and it's what I originally said about high hours tubes, yet this pisses off CRT-tards.
>>109630162They do but they are pretty good for shit like PS3 and Xbox 360.
>>109625369Only if you're a weak Zoomer
>>109630138>>>109628954look at this pic and tell me about them OLED blacks XD
>>109630164Mines TH 42PZ80EBlack level has significantly raised over the years, I wanna bring it back>>109630166>other way aroundDude shut the fuck up you dont know what you are talking about.I own many crts, and PC Monitor tubes easily last 30k hours while still looking goodBut I have lost multiple CRTs to Flybacks blowing upThis was maybe true for CRT TVs in the 60s and 70s, but no one swapped monitor tubes in the late 90s, and there was no need to either for the most part
>>109628714>CRT is very flickery and hard to watch60 Hz on any CRT monitor is pure dogshit. When I still had a CRT I had to set it to 75 Hz minimum or I'd get horrible eye strain and then eventually headaches. That fucking sucked when I had to use school computers that were always left at 60 Hz by default.
>>109630188Alright, well, I don't mean to piss anybody off. I got 3 CRTs, I can tell a massive difference between the chink Samshit with 2K hrs, which looks nearly as sharp as my worn out Mitz NF with >20K hrs. They all get blown out completely by my ST60 plasma though.
>>109630187there are literal black squares between the white grid lines.
>>109630159>>109630188Found the guide I used, it's several pages.https://panasonic.mironto.sk/
>>109630215Brother, I'm on about the blooming, round the top colour bars and bottom greyscale ramps. That got solved by the LCDs/OLEDs/Plasmas or whatever fixed grid piece-of-shit that came after CRTs. That monitor has very good convergence though, fuck me, and it looks pretty sharp for 30K hours.
>>109630214I think its really down to tube lottery and technology, not hoursI have tubes with 11k hours that are dimmer and blurrier then tubes with much higher hoursApature grille tubes, at least, last a VERY long timeSony and Mitsubishi tubes can easily go 50k hours id say>>109630215not to poop on the CRT party since I really love the tech, but compared to the true perfect contrast of an OLED panel, CRT falls very shortCRTs only have OLED blacks in a completely dark room, with no white on screenThe moment you have any ambient light or any white on screen, they arent as deep as OLED anymoreStill good, but definetely not as good as OLED or even a late model PlasmaANSI really kills CRT>>109630239Thanks man.My Panasonic Plasma has noticably brighter blacks then it did when I got it a few years ago, its allready got I think 36k hours on the clock I hope it will look close to my OLED monitor again if I calibrate it
>>109630247those are all absent on actual CRTs, it's the camera being unable to capture it properly.
Why aren't CRTs being re-produced again? The niche market is definetely there.
>>109630247>That monitor has very good convergence though, fuck meyeah im pretty happy and surprised with how it turned out, its a tube swap>30k hoursThat was referring to one of my other monitorsIm not sure how many hours this tube has, but the monitor I took it from was used by the previous owner untill it died, and the phosphor is noticably darker then on my other sony crtsSo id wager it could be closer to 50-60k hours evenI ruined the original tube in a polishing experiment, and the spare tube I put in looked like this at first without calibrationIts crazy how much a good calibration can do for a CRT, especially with SONY, because Sony CRTs drift so much over timeNever write off a CRT before calibration>>109630254Brother I am the owner of that CRT, and the blacks are very much not perfect, especially not because I took that pic in a lit roomSure its better then LCD, but thats not saying muchAmbient light or white on screen sadly destroys the black level on any CRT, no matter how good the coating
>>109630254You can deffinently see blooming IRL though, don't be dishonest. Not as badly though.
>>109630288The niche market is already dying out.
>>109630288Just look at any CRT manufacturing plant video and imagine all the tooling and knowledge that was lost in the last 20 years
LCDs are cheaper to produce and transport. They also had the futuristic appeal that was a huge thing for normies back in the day.
>>109630328>They also had the futuristic appeal that was a huge thing for normies back in the day.That's one thing I find funny in older movies, specially futuristic sci-fi, where everything still uses CRTs. I.e. Alien.
>>109630254I have 2 CRT monitors in-front of me showing the same blooming. I am not sure what the exact cause is, it may be due capacitance of the tube itself or secondary electrons causing nearby phosphors to excite.
>>109630288they wouldn't be expensive to make except for the machines and tooling which would be in the billions and end up not having a big enough market to recoup the costs. Plus there is anything cultural behind CRTs to create constant annual demand so when all Gen Xers, Millennial and newgen zoomies die off in the next 40-50 years they will genuinely become museum relics.
>>109625288they are large, inefficient, expensive to produce/ship and have piss poor longevity.
BulkyYou could see the pixels easilyGathered a lot of dust due to electrostaticsA lot of them had curved glass screen which I didn't likeBig ones were expensive afTook a lot of space tooAnd they connected through that VGA bulky connector you had to screw in
>>109625288because they were shit
>>109625288I can get an UST projector and do 120". I can also take that projector anywhere I want. If you had a 120" CRT, you'd need a crane just to move it.
>>109630893CRT projector
>>109630904Aren't manufactured anymore and would cost a ton to replace the bulbs or fix. Meanwhile, an UST projector does RGB, just with lasers. You can put the fucker less than a foot away from the wall and get 120".
>>109630917>bulbs
>>109630928>ignores everything he can't rebutI accept your concession. Thanks for admitting I'm right.
>>109630937>BuLbS in a CrT PrOjEcToR
>>109630917With the same sample and hold motion blur like an LCD.
>>109630961>doubles down>doesn't even attempt to rebut anything elseThanks for admitting I'm right and you're wrong. I accept your concession. Filtered. Reply more, I'll never see it. I know you will, all sub-60 IQs reply again. Prove me right again.
>>109630981Damn you must be really bothered for making such a rookie zoomie mistake about a topic you have no idea about.
