CRTs are, by a considerable margin, the best method we've discovered for tricking the human brain into perceiving motion and it's not even close. >film is dogshit>lcds are actually the worst replacement ever>oleds only look good bc lcds are just that badwith motion clarity it's unparalleled. a good tube takes decades to die, hell some outlive you. they're thick as a brick and you have to have actual strength to get one in your house. this was ensouled, reliable tech killed by corporate greed and now we all use overpriced dogshit calculator displays.
CRTs don't support VRR therefore CRTs are irrelevant.And now with Nvidia Pulsar CRTs are completely and utterly irrelevant. And no, one guy hardware hacking freesync into a single CRT doesn't mean they all support it.
>lcd le bad>oled le goodopinion discarded
>>109669666the thing is you really don't need any of this shit.all programs should be timed to the refresh rate. want more? get a better tube or step down the res. not rocket scienceyou're being led around by baubles and trinkets
>>109669713>all programs should be timed to the refresh rateFrame capped VRR has better latency than vsync and you don't stutter if you drop a frame.
>>109669616Fuck CRTs.Fuck Retroomers.Simple As.
>>109669762and both pale in comparison to a CRT. there is no processing, therefore there is no lag. vrr still fucks you over as well if you leave that on but vsync off, some programs tear when exceeding refresh. turn on both and voila, back to input lag.
>>109669786found the noodle arms
>>109669762Mailbox presentation mode in Vulkan and dx12 enables vsync without the classical latency (the classical buffered Vsync is called FIFO in these APIs). Your game keeps rendering into two backbuffers as fast as it can, but during vertical blank the most recent back buffer is swapped with the front buffer. This has literally zero downsides (as long as you keep fps>hz) and doesn't require VRR. >And now with Nvidia Pulsar CRTs are completely and utterly irrelevant. I will believe it when I see it.
>>109669796>and both pale in comparison to a CRT.and both pale in comparison to a CRT.Wrong. Frame-capped VRR scans directly out. A CRT with vsync is buffering frames. Frame-capped VRR is faster than any vsync'd output.>vrr still fucks you over as well if you leave that on but vsync off, some programs tear when exceeding refresh.That's not VRR fucking you over, that's you not understanding what VRR is for and having it incorrectly configured.>turn on both and voila, back to input lag.There is no input lag with frame-capped VRR, it's identical to frame-capped v-sync off in terms of latency.>>109669829Mailbox vsync is faster than FIFO, but its not as fast as frame-capped VRR / frame-capped v-sync off.Both of you completely ignored that VRR also completely eradicates stuttering from dropped frames.
>>109669616Yeah, how heavy is a 47" CRT?
>>109669666>>109669762>>109669878What's the point when all you'll see anyway is copious blur? I'd much rather take CRT clarity with tear lines, than nauseating sample&hold blur without tears.
>>109669935>47''that would be a rear projection display which sucked, and it's called team lifting. you don't have friends anon?
>>109669959>And now with Nvidia Pulsar CRTs are completely and utterly irrelevant.Keep up.
>>109670039>>109669666>Nvidia Pulsar>LCD tech
>>109670061Enjoy your inferior experience as outlined in that message chain you have no retort for.
>>109670061I have that monitor, missing the plastic power button though.
>>109670327The 21" P1110? Aesthehtics wise it's an endgame unit.The chassis is fairly prone to arc failures though
>>109669616>films are trashin a gaming context, yes, but I invite you to discover the wonders of analogic film regarding color, lighting and definition
>film is dogshitjust like this bread
brown poorfaggots ITT
I have CRT hyperbole fatigue.
>>109669616it's the reason why fighter pilot simulations to this day still use crt projectors. if you have a splitsecond to identify something in motion, only crt will be able to deliver. it's baffling all those 'pro gamers' with their shooting games play on flattech, they have no idea...meanwhile, i do enjoy playing games on my 150" crt. sure it's not as sharp or colorful as an oled, but when you need to track objects in a game with your eyes, anything else but crt is disgusting.
>>109669616Why are zoomers so obsessed with rewriting history?People stopped using CRTs because they were fuckhuge and annoying. That's it. There's no grand conspiracy. People just preferred LCD.
>>109670550>it's baffling all those 'pro gamers' with their shooting games play on flattech, they have no idea...Some of them actually do use CRT monitors for this reason. It's a tradeoff for field of view though.Pro gamers are retarded for a lot of reasons thoughbeit.
>>109670550>>109670616In counter-strike you don't really ever even track motion. It's a tactical positioning game, not a twitch shooter - if you see your enemy long enough to start visually tracking them, you fucked up and are probably already dead.99% of the game at high ELO is just holding maximally cheesy pixel angles and hoping the enemy walks in your propositioned crosshair. You barely even need a mouse to play it competently at mid ELOs if your positioning is even barely decent.LCD or CRT for counter-strike doesn't really matter, except with CRTs you cannot use 4:3 *stretched* to 16:9 which is a rather surprising disadvantage. Makes long range precision pixel-cheese shots (which is much more common than CQB or trackable motion) that much harder.But I still play it with a CRT because it looks so much nicer, it's not a competitive advantage but I just like looking at pretty colors instead of depressing TN smear like back in the day.
>>109669666>>109669713No, you don't need it, period. VRR is only necessary for sample and hold displays. That's like the entire point of CRTs, being impulse-based.
>>109670714fwiw you can use a 16:9 resolution and 'squash' it with the monitor controls (vertical width). just because it's a 4:3 screen doesn't mean you can't produce a perfect 16:9 ratio. it'll just have black bars. the same exact reason why i have my 4:3 projector displaying a 16:9 picture.
>>109670787I know that, and with 4:3 stretched I mean what many counter-strike players do on 16:9 LCDs. They render the game at 4:3 but stretch it to 16:9. This is effectively zoom only in horizontal axis, which makes long range engagements a lot easier.
>>109670805>which makes long range engagements a lot easier.It doesn't. CS players are just the white girls of gaming that think 4:3 stretched and their crosshair makes them better players which is about as retarded as trying to align your chakras or praying to god before playing for a better score.
this is how retarded cs players are lmao
>>109670839Zoom doesn't make long range engagements easier?Then explain why long range engagements are easier with AWPs, Augs and Sigs.
>>109669616CRT is best for the specific use case of motion clarity between frames due to effectively 0 ghosting.However, for literally anything else, modern panel technology is far superior.
>>109670868You aren't zooming anything by changing your aspect ratio in CS2 you clueless retard. CS2 uses Hor+ for FOV so you don't get any zoom from changing your aspect ratio. God I fucking hate how clueless CS players are about their own game. I don't even like CS.
>>109670897>CS2 uses Hor+ for FOV so you don't get any zoom from changing your aspect ratio. What? Hor+ literally means the aspect ratio defines your horizontal FOV. Like virtually every single game ever, the aspect ratio is fixed in vertical.Queue the countless clips of "4:3 moments" where pros walk past players they could have seen with 16:9 resolution.I think you're making contrarianism your personality too hard and making an utter fool out of yourself. 4:3 stretch results in a zoom, and a zoom is an objective advantage at long ranges. This is not settings tinkering cope.
>>109670966Your image literally proves me correct you brain damaged retard. You aren't zooming in like you do with vert-, you're just chopping off part of the image for no reason at all.>Like virtually every single game ever, the aspect ratio is fixed in vertical.GoldSRC/1.6 used vert- you clueless retard. A wider aspect ratio literally zoomed you in. Stop humiliating yourself jesus christ.
>>109670966if 4:3 caused you to zoom in the blue section would be magnifiedit isn't.....
>>109671039How exactly is this not a zoom
>>109670774>VRR is only necessary for sample and hold displays. You are objectively incorrect.VRR solves tearing, stuttering and latency when you correctly cap the frame rate. A vsync'd CRT has more latency with vsync and still stutters from dropped frames.
>>109671039You're like that guy in the "but feathers are lighter than steel" skit
>>109671104Because regardless of if you play 4:3, 16:9, or 21:9, the FOV in the centre of your screen is EXACTLY THE SAME.If you place an enemy in the middle of that screenshot, he is exactly the same size regardless of your aspect ratio.If you across decreased your FOV the enemy would be bigger. Stretching doesn't "zoom" the same way stretching a 4:3 image doesn't make an image "widescreen"You're trolling, there is no way you're this retarded.You image LITERALLY proves me correct. >>109671130Not an argument. You've been raped and gaped.
>>109669829not anon, but mailbox only exists on wayland (but on dx you can add triple buffering by just setting the swapchain size to 3, which adds latency for better throughput).Generally having fewer buffers + wait for present makes the FPS go down, but should in theory make latency better, and then there are extensions like nvidia reflex and AMD anti-lag which are designed to help with gpu bottlenecks causing latency (certain FPS games like CS).and note that the steam os has a FIFO version of wayland which implements FIFO because mailbox is really annoying since DX is FIFO only + guarantee's that a developer can just wait for the vblank (for simulating physics at a consistant rate, unlike opengl...), and of course for battery life. But wayland is not used for proton/wine games (and steam OS uses x11 when it's not in "Game Mode", I think).On windows, having low latency depends on having exclusive fullscreen, and on windows 11 you have independant flip for low latency on Desktop Fullscreen + maybe windowed mode (but it also depends on your graphics driver having MPO layers enabled). You can see for yourself the latency of games by using intel PresentMon + enabling the input to photon latency (this drops to zero when I'm not moving my mouse/input) + also enabling the present mode (check if you are in independant flip) on the overlay widget.
>>109669666>CRTs don't support VRR therefore CRTs are irrelevant.They do though. https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=3234Tested myself too.
>>109669616>this was ensouledmental illness kys troon
>>109669666>And no, one guy hardware hacking freesync into a single CRT doesn't mean they all support it.also >>109671174 is not even hardware hacking, you can do it with a normal HDMI/DP to VGA dongle
>>109671175when you buy ur 20th lcd after no. 19 burnt out watching tranny porn recall this thread and pat yourself on the back for being such a good little goyim
CS players are so fucking brain damaged
>>109671174>>109671192The number of people doing this right now in the world is at most 5. CRTs by any meaningful metric do not support VRR.
>>109670873the whole point of a motion picture is the motion no?if you like looking at stills that much take a photo it'll last longer
>>109671231>The number of people doing this right now in the world is at most 5. Nice anecdote. >CRTs by any meaningful metric do not support VRR.They do though. Best part is CRTs don't even care, you feed them a signal and they display it, they don't process anything, the H/V sync signal goes directly into the H/V deflection. The only limitation is how high or low of a frequency it supports.
>>109669694lmaolol
>>109671155Why are you insisting on making claims that are this trivially proven as false?Also yes I started up CS just for this>inb4 but steel's heavier than feathers
>>109671323>those skins
>>109671334Disgusting that bugmen can't even into basic cooking.
>>109671174VRR makes a lot of sense if you are running at a higher FPS.with a CRT, you don't need VRR for 60hz or even a hacked 120hz+, unless you are too poor for a decent GPU.Emulated games generally run at a locked 60hz even if the game is running at 30hz + you have VRR enabled.And also I believe CRT's have like a million different resolutions, unlike LCD monitors which only have like the common sizes, so if you had to select a lower FPS/resolution for a certain game you can't run, you could, and you would get better FPS / brightness or whatever from the CRT (unlike an LCD which needs to upscale the pixels since the pixels can't move, unlike a CRT).Meanwhile if you got a pulsar monitor, it would hit 360hz, which introduces a new problem (not unique to pulsar), which is that uncapping the fps for certain games causes micro-stutter if you aren't able to hit the max hz (depends on the game).So, yes, having a high FPS is a problem. CRT's are more convenient in this handicap, but most people would try to fix the problem by purchasing a bigger GPU (It should make the stutter less noticeable with a higher FPS, but a custom FPS limit is better but autistic).Also I can't feel latency. I have spent years working on graphics and I never noticed that opengl/dx/vulkan have between 3-30ms of latency depending on how you configure them (desktopfullscreen/exlusive/windowed), obviously when it's on the screen on intel presentMon, it's obvious, I can feel it kinda, but I can't tell how much of that is placebo and how much is actually going to make my aim better or "fun".
>>109671220You forgot to stretch the 4:3 screenshot to match the dimensions of the 16:9 screenshotDid it really miss you we were talking about stretched 4:3 the whole time?"But steels heavier than feathers"
>>109671446There's still no reason not to use VRR in any case. V-Sync and monitor side sync are legacy mechanisms when we couldn't do better.
>>109671522>monitor side syncFixed sync I mean*
Another day, another retarded zoomer jerking off over obsolete trash tech they weren't alive for and pretending all the flaws of them don't exist.
>>109671512STRETCHING IS NOT ZOOM
>>109671904It literally is tho
>>109671244It's not all or nothing. CRTs have the best motion clarity, but OLED gets fairly close.You could similarly make a specious argument that the point of a motion picture is also the picture, which OLED excels at. If you like looking at motion, then go outside.
>>109672101What if I stretched the image both horizontally and vertically by using a bigger monitor? I'm going to use my TV at normal monitor distance. I think it's going to make me a better gamer. The enemies will be bigger and easier to click on.
>>109673496Pros actually play like this
the only people who hate CRTs are too weak to lift and carry them
>>109671323That's not zoomed in you fucking retard, it's stretched.See: >>109671220>>109671512Stretching doesnt zoom the same way stretching doesn't make something widescreen you retard. It's not bigger it's just distorted. ZOOMING like an AWP requires MAGNIFICATION
>>109669616Plasma.
>>109673749You're just desperately trying to redefine terms to try claw back some kind of technical win out of the argument.Regardless what you call it, 4:3 stretched makes the enemy player model bigger on your screen. Which makes it easier to aim on at longer distances, exactly like magnification does.
>>109672485They don't get close though, that's the point. It's going to take 1000hz OLEDs to match a 75hz CRT. (I'm saying 75hz because at 60hz CRT monitors are tiring to use)
>>109673771You said 4:3 stretched zooms in. It doesn't. I proved you wrong in several ways, and you even proved yourself wrong. Zooming in (like an AWP (>>109670868)) requires the FOV to narrow. CS2 FOV uses hor+ when changing aspect ratio. There is no zoom, the image here proves me correct >>109670966. The image here also proves me correct. >>109671220Stretching an image doesn't the FOV, there is no zoom.CS 1.6 used vert-, which did "zoom in" when you played in wide screen. It was like playing with a scope on.You lost.
>>109674031>requires the FOV to narrow. Horizontal FOV is narrower when you use 4:3.
>>109673835Have you ever heard of diminishing returns?OLED and even high refresh rate LCD is close enough to CRT that it doesn't matter for 99.999% of use cases, and the benefits of other panel types far outweigh the relatively minimal loss in motion clarity.
>>109674238NTA but you can't even scroll websites on a "high refresh rate" OLED without the text getting noticeably blurred vs a CRT.OLEDs still feel like fake screens, while CRTs feel like windows to another dimension, the motion difference is that stark. One replicates reality, the other just doesn't.The motion clarity diminishing returns don't begin until like a couple thousand herz or so.
>>109674293I've never had this problem. My OLED is the smoothest monitor I've ever used, but I have a 240hz one. Lower refresh rate might have issues, idk.
>>109669616No, they are not. You are coping hard. >Acutal CRT-fag not the NuCRT wannabes
>>109674037The FOV of a 4:3 section of a 16:9 image isn't magnified you retard. You lost.
>>109674431Whats a NuCRT? Some kind of russian tracker?
>>109670714Crts don't actually have good contrast, a typical monitor is 1:300 (average gamer ips is 1:1000), images like these fraud by raising black levels way above 2.2gamma
>>109669616You are strong and I hope you know it.
>>109676338>what is backlight bleedingcrt is far better in constrast and blacklevel. only oled does a better job in that department.i doubt you ever used a crt monitor, 1:1000 means nothing if the '1' is several shades of grey above black. but it's the marketing bullshit they've been spouting for decades, with terrible black levels and white being like staring into a halogen bulb.
It wasn't a great trick, it was simple economics.A great trick would be recreating CRT technology in a manner that it is economical to manufacture them.So really your post is:>wah wah they stopped selling this thing i liked at the store waaaaaahAnd that's where it begins and where it stops with you and people like you. Something isn't on a shelf for you to buy anymore so you're complaining and crying about it. You will take 0 steps in the real world to remedy this until your brain switches focus to another consumer product.
>>109674995>The FOV of a 4:3 section of a 16:9 image isn't magnified you retardBut it literally is when it's stretched to fit 16:9. It literally is narrower FOV made to fit the same area, which literally is zoom. But only in horizontal axis.Anyway, stop arguing pointless semantics. The player model appears larger here >>109671323, and thus is easier to aim at. Which validates my original point.
>>109676338My colorimeter disagrees with you. Infinite:1 contrast with perfect grayscale tracking :)
>>109677195Tho full disclosure iirc the color accuracy here wasn't reliable because I mistakenly tested against display profile, not sRGB profile. This pic is like 4 years old. But grayscale isn't practically affected by it and the point about infinite contrast stands
>>109674995>contrarian semantic fucking retard that's never looked at a funhouse mirrorChrist, you must be an insufferable fucking cunt IRL. Stretching a 4:3 CS2 image to fill a 16:9 screen EFFECTIVELY RESULTS IN 1.3X HORIZONTAL ZOOM.
>>109669762How is this supposed to work with multiple windows?
>>109677195>greyscale measurements only go down to RGB 13You should measure greyscale down to RGB 1. 1 nit at RGB 13, means you are crushing blacks with your 'infinite' contrast. ANSI contrast better reflects real world usage and it's 80:1 for CRTs (even 2003 LCDs had higher contrast). Standard CRTs have cutoff tuned to 0.3 nit black level. Most monitors have 100 nits peak brightness. That is 333:1 contrast ratio.>>109669616>decades to dieCRTs decay to half luminance around 10K-13K hours, at which point video amplifier needs cranking and or G2 be raised to compensate for the luminance loss. This makes the picture soft. Yes, there's CRTs that last 30K+ hours, but with a far softer image, being quite dim too. This isn't as major issue as the heavy black crush CRTs get after ~13K hours due to uneven cathode wearing.
>>109677605Every GPU ever made has gamma LUTs which allow you to map any channel level to any display luminescence. You can make #000000 0 nits and #010101 20 nits if you so choose. If you have any crush, it's just user error.>ANSI contrast better reflects real world usagWrong unless you play chess 24/7 and even then rarely the foreground is actual #FFFFFFMy "real life usage" looks like picrel and a CRT looks a trillion times better than any LCD in scenes like this, where it actually matters.
>>109677691How do you go by writing to that LUT though? GPUs definitely have this, but is it not locked away hidden? So instead LUTs are done in software, either by the OS colour management or by the application, though I know there are some window managers that can do system wide luts.
>>109677741Typically things like displaycal let you load them from icc profiles. Your operating system, drivers and display server affects how they're loaded, but there's always a way unless you use garbage like Wayland. Sometimes there's a curve editor in your GPU driver software.X11 offers an unified API for this. I wrote this Xlib program like 5 years ago that lets me programmatically modify the LUTs to any shape I wish.https://rentry.co/gvxeiiaqI typically use this over the curves my colorimeter generates.
ULMB pulse width modulation at 30 is a fine middle ground
CRT's had a metric fuckton of disadvantages.-retardedly expensive to manufacture. The only reason they were affordable in retail was due to economy of scale.-dangerous to maintain. The vacuum tube could explode and the voltage cap could electrocute you.-extremely heavy-couldn't reasonably scale up in size. See: Sony PVM-4300, how expensive it was, how heavy it was, and how little of them were madeSure, early CRT's were utter dogshit, but there was a reason why everyone wanted to get away from CRT's. Why plasma TV's got so popular, they were thinner, lighter, and bigger. Now everything is an LED screen because it's cheaper to make, it's lighter, and can easily scale up to massive sizes. Plus, modern gaming screens have refresh rates way higher than those that you could achieve on overclocked CRT's, and 120-200Hz screens are dirt cheap nowadays.That does not take away from the fact that CRT's had some obvious advantages, like the uncontested motion clarity thanks to every scanline being shot out individually every screen refresh, effectively strobing every scanline, which only now we're managing to replicate with technologies like Nvidia Reflex, which need dedicated electronics in the screen to properly sync up the backlight strobe, and even then it's limited to larger sections rather than individual scanlines. CRT's also had superior color reproduction thanks to it's photon masks, unlike LED screens that vary from unit to unit where they need manual calibration for professional work. Still, what we lost with CRT's was made up by what we gained with LCD's in the long run.
>>109669616I upgraded to an LCD monitor as soon as possible back in the 2000s and everything about it was an upgrade
>>109677177>>109677413It's not pointless semantics. There is no zoom. A 4:3 stretched image contains the exact same information as a 4:3 normal image. You havent reduced the distance of the player to the target on the z-axis in any capacity.Going from a 24" display go a 32" display doesn't 'zoom' your view. Those images demonstrate I am objectively correct. This is literally why games moved from vert- to hor+ for FOV, to stop advantages (and discomfort) from aspect ratios granting you an advantage. To deny this goes against reality.You lose.
>>109678386>You havent reduced the distance of the player to the target on the z-axis in any capacity.That's not how a zoom works you utter retard. Did you take this meme as gospel?Zoom is just reduced FOV. Which is geometrically equal to cropping an image and then stretching it to fit the previous boundaries. >Going from a 24" display go a 32" display doesn't 'zoom' your view. It does though, CS players infamously lean in >>109673529 to make distant shots easier>You lose.Will you ever address >>109671323 or will you just keep ignoring it?
I just want ∞:1 googolplex event horizon void black levels CRT and OLED should join forces to tear the eyes out of LCDfags
So what's the essential checklist when buying a CRT? I'm putting together some parts from old builds of mine and I need a decent monitor.
>>109678411>That's not how a zoom works you utter retard.That's explicitly what zoom does. It creates NEW information. You don't zoom by stretching the SAME information.>Zoom is just reduced FOVCorrect (See image). Which isn't achieved by stretching an image. And because CS2 is Hor+, changing your aspect ratio doesn't "Zoom" unlike games that are Vert-.>Which is geometrically equal to cropping an image and then stretching it to fit the previous boundaries.Wrong. Increasing the size of an image doesn't create new information. You've applied distortion. There is no "zoom".>Will you ever address >>109671323 or will you just keep ignoring it?I already did you retard you simply had no retort. >>109673749This is literally why games moved from vert- to hor+ for FOV, to stop advantages (and discomfort) from aspect ratios granting you an advantage. To deny this goes against reality. You have no counter-argument.
>>109678785>new informationNow you're moving goalposts and STILL arguing semantics. Nobody ever said anything about new information.It's a red herring too. There are crude post-process/xorg cheats that literally just magnify the existing pixels on screen on demand. You're zooming in to existing data, making precision shots that much easier.Which is basically no different to what 4:3 stretch does. It's a silly hardware quirk that allows cheating, but we're just okay with it.>I already did you retard you simply had no retort.Because it's retarded pointless semanticsThe player model is larger thus easier to aim at from long distancesIt's not rocket science
>>109678872>Nobody ever said anything about new information.I did, that's the entire argument you cretin for which you have no argument against. Taking the same information and distorting it confers absolutely no advantage. You haven't created new information, because CS2 uses Hor+, not Vert-. This is why CS players are retarded and I have demonstrated as such.Notice how you completely avoided talking about the image I uploaded that proves you completely wrong? It speaks volumes.>>Respond to my post!!!!!>I did>>Well, yeah you did but I don't have a counter-argument for your response??????????????????You lost.
>>109678951Why do post-process zoom cheats exist then? If zooming without new information is pointless?
>>109678523ideally one with large amount of KHz, the more the faster you can run it.>>109678951not him, but you're wrong.you know how old games just blew up the image instead of using 3d fov when zooming? yeah... get lost, kid.
>>109678970>Why do CS players play 4:3>Why do CS players think their crosshair affects their aim?>Why do CS players sit so close to their screen?>Why do CS players play with 400 DPI?>Why do post-process zoom cheats exist then? Because CS players are the retarded tech illiterate white girls of gaming who will do anything to cope about their shots missing because of RNG. >>109678979Decreasing the resolution doesn't zoom in you brain damaged retard.
>>109679017>no argumentI accept your concessionI hope you learn not to dig such holes for yourself. The trick to never being wrong is always being ready to change your opinion.>>109678979>you know how old games just blew up the image instead of using 3d fov when zooming? yeah... get lost, kid.Oh "new" games do this too in some scenarios, iirc OG insurgency's sniper scopes disabled picture-in-picture at lowest setting, instead just blew up the natively rendered image under the scope. At least I remember low settings copes looking like awful pixel mush, but was still better than nothing.
>>109679017what is zoom.enlarging an image, in the process losing information, but making part of the image larger, this way tiny details in that 'original flat image' are easier to notice.3d shooters generally are a horizontal aiming endavour instead of vertical.stretching the image horizontally, aka zooming in only on the horizontal axis, helps looking/aiming at those details.now you've only focused on camera zoom, while i believe you'd be intelligent enough to realize what was meant was image zoom. you wanted conflict...for what? are you bored?
>>109679089>no argumentCorrect, just like you have no argument to this post: >>109678951. You addressed nothing I said and attempted to pivot. I denied your pivot by responding in kind. I accept your concession.You are completely and utterly intellectually outmatched. >>109679094>what is zoom.I demonstrated how zoom works in this image >>109678785"Zooming in" with the AWP does the same as that image, it creates additional detail.Stretching a 4:3 image doesn't "zoom", you aren't creating additional detail. CS2 uses Hor+ when changing aspect ratios, not Vert-. You do not gain detail when reducing the aspect ratio.
>>109679258>You addressed nothing I said Because there's nothing relevant to address, it's all pointless semantics.Yes steel's technically heavier than feathers, but there's 1 kilogram of both.>and attempted to pivot.YES attempted to pivot BACK to the original argument, whether 4:3 stretched gives you an advantage or not (it 100% does specifically with long-range engagements).Nothing else matters. Nobody thinks you're smart, cease the pointless semantics.
>>109679258>You are completely and utterly intellectually outmatched. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIarrG9ZO4I
>>109679332>Because there's nothing relevant to addressThere is, you simply have no counter argument. You are literally coping because you lost the argument. You even attempted a pivot, and I read you like a book. I accept your concession. You lost.
>>109679431Does 4:3 stretch give a competitive edge vs 16:9 here >>109671323 ? I refuse to argue semantics with you. Peak dunning-kruger behaviour.
>>109679455>Does 4:3 stretch give a competitive edgeNo, that is literally the point of this discussion. You aren't "zooming in" like you do an AWP. No additional detail is being created. I have demonstrated that there isn't any detail created, and you have failed to demosntrate that there is detail being created.CS2 uses Hor+ when changing aspect ratios, not Vert-. You do not gain detail when reducing the aspect ratio or stretching an image. I demonstrated what actual zoom does in this post: >>109678785FACT: CS2 uses Hor+, not Vert- when changing aspect ratio. There is no zoom that gets applied (Unlike 1.6, which did zoom because it used Vert-).FACT: You attempted to call me out for not addressing to your post (I did). Now I'm calling you out for not addressing my post and suddenly you're doing everything but addressing my post (Because you have no counter-argument)FACT: You attempted to pivot, I replied in kind, baiting you into a response and you fell right into my trap. You've been completely outclassed intellectually. 3-0 to me.
>>109679592>NoWell you're just wrong. It's much easier to see what you're doing when everything's 30% wider.> No additional detail is being created.As I >>109678970 and other anons already pointed out, this is a red herring and not an argument.Rest of your post is once again entirely irrelevant when your premise is wrong.
>>109679664>Well you're just wrong.No, you're wrong. I have demonstrated that there isn't any detail created, and you have failed to demosntrate that there is detail being created.>It's much easier to see what you're doing when everything's 30% wider.False. You have the exact same information being displayed. You aren't creating information/or detail by stretching the image.Take this image. When I apply actual zoom by reducing the FOV, I am creating additional detail. >Rest of your post is once again entirely irrelevant when your premise is wrong.It's not irrelevant. You're only saying this because literally do not have a counter-argument. All you are doing is coping because you have lost.FACT: CS2 uses Hor+, not Vert- when changing aspect ratio. There is no zoom that gets applied (Unlike 1.6, which did zoom because it used Vert-).FACT: You attempted to call me out for not addressing to your post (I did). Now I'm calling you out for not addressing my post and suddenly you're doing everything but addressing my post (Because you have no counter-argument)FACT: You attempted to pivot, I replied in kind, baiting you into a response and you fell right into my trap. You've been completely outclassed intellectually.I won, 3-0.
>>109679765>I have demonstrated that there isn't any detail created,See >>109678970>It's much easier to see what you're doing when everything's 30% wider.>False.See >>109678970>You aren't creating information/or detail by stretching the image.See >>109678970>You're only saying this because literally do not have a counter-argument.See >>109678970
>>109679455there is no real advantageif there was, everyone would use stretched 4:3, which is not the casealso OLED is pretty close to CRT, amazing response times and practically no input laghowever 85hz CRT is better than any LCDI think OLED can be a good way forward, CRT is never coming backespecially for home cinema, you can't really beat a big OLED screen, at that costyou can get decent enough WOLED 77" for 1500
>>109679784Your utter failure to address the arguments I have made can only be interpretted as a concession. So in regards to everything we've discussed so far, I accept your concession.Now you want to talk about post-process zoom cheats, this further demonstrates why I am 100% correct and I have the easiest example to prove me correct.Does the left image have more detail than the right?Does the right image have more detail than the left?Or are they the same?Or are you going to cope and say I only uploaded 1 image?
>>109669616motion clarity isn't a real issue. nobody even knows what it is.
>Will you ever address >>109671323 or will you just keep ignoring it?I can't imagine having such a lack of integrity you attempt to call someone out for not addressing your post (when I did (>>109673749)), then spending over 2 hours avoiding addressing the arguments given in a post by coping and saying "it's irrelevant", and desperately attempting to pivot to some other discussion.Jesus christ have some dignity.
>>109679823>if there was, everyone would use stretched 4:3, which is not the caseYou forgot that 4:3 stretched is a tradeoff with disadvantages. Just like typical sniper zooms, it makes close engagements harder because everything moves 30% faster and you see less around you. Also the blur caused by rendering at a non-native resolution annoys many people. But with long-range fights such as pictured, it's a noticeable advantage. For the maps I play and in the style I play, I find the tradeoffs well worth it. Being able to get entry frags at these annoying distances is very impactful on full-buy rounds.>>109679828>Does the left image have more detail than the right?Literally doesn't matter. Of course a native zoom rendered with "more detail" is preferred to a crude post-process zoom, but both are zooms which will make long range fights easier vs no zoom.
>>109670550ive seriously been thinking of doing the crt thing. i was trying to place where my skill ceiling came crashing down for osu and quake and i think its literally when i was 18 and switched from crt to a ultrasharp. i replaced my ultrasharps with 240hz monitors but i still feel like they are really really holding me back. i remember being the sickest freezerailer ever even on crts and doing crazy ar10 osu jump maps i literally lost all my skill when i turned 18. and when you all started shilling crts again a lot these last few years. i realized i got bad at video games when i moved out of my parents at 18 which is when i had my first job and bought my first "nice" monitor.
>>109679925Reminder: It's duely noted that you haven't addressed my main post that destroys your position and so your concession up until this point has still been accepted by me.FACT: Narrowing your aspect ratio and stretching the image confers absolutely no advantage because CS2 uses Hor+, not Vert-.>Of course a native zoom rendered with "more detail" is preferred to a crude post-process zoomNot just detail, precision. Remember, we're comparing the view of an AWP to someone with a rifle here. Your position is that it doesn't matter.
>>109669616If they're so great, why doesn't anyone make them anymore?-posted from my QD-OLED
>>109680035Economics. They stopped making them as demand fell. Now that NOBODY makes them, starting production back up would be insanely expensive. If e.g. Sony had kept a small line of suitably expensive "premium" Trinitrons going then you might still be able to get one.LCDs are fucking PISS cheap to manufacture, they're pure profit with minimal logistics. Shipping a CRT from factory to distributor probably used to cost more in unadjusted for inflation dollarydoos than the entire BOM for a 50" LCD. The RAM on the mainboard might genuinely be the most expensive component.
>>109680027>Your position is that it doesn't matter.What? I literally said it's "preferred", and if you had two braincells in your head, you'd understand that also implies "superior".>Remember, we're comparing the view of an AWP to someone with a rifle here.Wrong, we're comparing someone with a rifle to someone with a rifle and a 30% post-process zoom.Plus I once again am forced to repeat my arguments>but both are zooms which will make long range fights easier vs no zoom.
>>109669616hell noi was playing on a 14" CRT for ten yearsi would never switch back from my current IPS.Any large (21" lol) CRT was thousands in $$$
>>109680178>Any large (21" lol) CRT was thousands in $$$You could have gotten them for free in 2010s :)That's what all the CRT shills did and told you to do. They were unquestionably the best displays available till the late 2010s, and they're still nigh impossible to beat today.
OLED can't be good for your eyes. There's no way.
>>109671512>You forgot to stretch the 4:3 screenshotFuck yeah. Look how ZOOMED IN that puppy is (I am very intelligent).
>>109680089Reminder: It's duely noted that you haven't addressed my main post that destroys your position and so your concession up until this point has still been accepted by me.FACT: Narrowing your aspect ratio and stretching the image confers absolutely no advantage because CS2 uses Hor+, not Vert-.>What? I literally said it's "preferred"You said "Literally doesn't matter" (>>109679925), then for whatever reason in the next sentence softened that to agree with me that actual zoom does matter.>Wrong, we're comparing someone with a rifle to someone with a rifle and a 30% post-process zoom.But a 30% post-process zoom doesn't confer any advantage. You aren't gaining any additional precision or detail. You're so utterly raped, your entire premise now resides on there being a sufficient amount of people using these post-processing zoom cheats why you haven't quantified in any meaningful way.Is it non-zero? Sure. But I've already demonstrated how utterly brain damaged CS players are when it comes to coping about their losses. All you've done is further validate my claim that CS players are the white girls of gaming.
>>109669616The only use case for crts in 2026 is muh retro vidya gaems, grow up.
>>109680089>CS players play 4:3 stretched>CS players think their crosshair affects their aim>CS players sit so close to their screen>CS players play with 400 DPI>Post-process zoom cheats existDoes that mean all of these confer some advantage? No, you utter retard. That's why we explore with evidence and break down why that isn't true with facts and logic. Then when you can't provide a counter-argument, and lose an argument so badly you try to point to the existence of it as proof of its advantage, it's time to take the L and move on.
>>109680384>Literally doesn't matterThat I meant towards your pathetic attempt of an argument. It doesn't matter if there's more detail in the zoom or not, zoom is a zoom and zoom is an advantage (in some situations).>But a 30% post-process zoom doesn't confer any advantage.Yes it does >>109678970>You aren't gaining any additional precision or detail. It makes it easier to see the information that's already there.>>109680450>Does that mean all of these confer some advantage?Literally every single one of them is a tradeoff. >CS players play 4:3 stretched16:9 makes close fights easier, 4:3 stretched makes long range fights easier>CS players think their crosshair affects their aimA pixel crosshair might be extremely precise but gets lost in the action easier.Typical X-crosshair is easier to keep track of, but can feel ambiguous when precision is required. etc etc etc>CS players sit so close to their screen>Post-process zoom cheats existI definitely lean in when lining up long range deag shots to better see what I am doing>CS players play with 400 DPIA lower DPI makes lining up precision shots easier, but makes reactive aiming harder and navigation more laborious (you WILL become lazy about checking corners!).
I'm in my 40s so I was there for CRT. CRT displays were way harder on the eyes, took up an absurd amount of desk real estate, were a pain in the ass to move around, etc. Flat displays also allow you to easily adjust how far back the monitor sits on your desk, etc. The monitors zoomgroids retro fags latch onto are all relatively upmarket examples that almost nobody owned back in the day. Modern displays offer a way better viewing experience at the bottom of the market stack than any CRT ever did..
Imagine being space restricted...
They fuck up your eyes and give you tinnitus
>>109680799>CRT displays were way harder on the eyes>Modern displays offer a way better viewing experience at the bottom of the market stack than any CRT ever did..You just never figured out CRTs could be set run faster than 60hz>>109680883Both problems are relevant only on CRT TVsCRT monitors are perfectly quiet and support high refresh rates thus don't visibly flicker
>>109680897It's not flicker, it's the radiation. Also they all make the tinnitus sound
I don't care and neither should you. Audiophile retard shit.
>>109680917>it's the radiation
>>109680917>Also they all make the tinnitus soundWrong only the 480i ones did, aka TVs because no monitor can display resolutions that low.The whine is caused by horizontal deflection frequency, or you literally hear the scanline being scanned. On TVs this frequency is 480*30 = ~15000, which is audible as the dreaded 15khz tone. Monitors usually ran at minimum 768p85hz. 768*85 = ~700000. You can't hear 70khz.
>>109680917-Annual- dose of ~1 to 2 µSv. Dental xray is 1-5 µSv, a flight is 40 µSv. Stop talking nonsense. It is the flicker, and it stops being an issue at >75hz which pretty much every monitor from the 90s was capable of.
>>109680596>That I meant towards your pathetic attempt of an argument.No, you said "Literally doesn't matter" (>>109679925), then for whatever reason in the next sentence softened that to agree with me that actual zoom does matter. >It doesn't matter if there's more detail in the zoom or notYes it does and I told you why. There is more precision and detail. You have no counter-argument.>Yes it doesJust because something exists or people do something someway doesn't mean it confers some advantage. You have totally failed to demonstrate that.>It makes it easier to see the information that's already there.The exact same information is being conveyed and you gain no additional precision. Again, you have totally failed to demonstrate that.>16:9 makes close fights easier, 4:3 stretched makes long range fights easierYou are objectively wrong and have failed to demonstrate this this entire thread. Meanwhile, I have objectively proven you wrong to the point you utterly conceded the argument.>A pixel crosshair might be extremely precise but gets lost in the action easier.Provided there are no visibility issues, your crosshair literally doesn't matter. >I definitely lean in when lining up long range deag shots to better see what I am doingOk? That doesn't mean it's better.>A lower DPI makes lining up precision shots easier, but makes reactive aiming harder and navigation more laborious (you WILL become lazy about checking corners!).Jesus you really are a tech illiterate retard. 400 DPI is objectively bad for 2 reasons:A higher in-game sens increases view aliasingA lower DPI increases latencyAgain, thank you once again for demonstrating that CS players are the retarded tech illiterate white girls of CS.
>>109669616I actually remember the headaches and eye strain induced from staring at CRT screens from more than a couple of hours. They're a cool novelty for retro gaymen but working on one for a whole day seems like a nightmare.
The real redpill is 3DGlasses free OLED 3D Monitors will be game changingTried them at gamescom yesterday, at least the LCD one, and man it was incredibleCyberpunk in 3D is awesome, probably even more important then motion clarity>>109669694Its the simple truthnuke third worlders do not like to hear.LCD has never ever made sense in anything apart from pocket calculators and the Gameboy>LCDs in Hifi and Video tech?Mark of poverty, high end devices had vfd>LCDs as a TV?Mark of poverty, Plasma was better in every way>LCD as a PC Monitor?Mark of retardation, CRTs were better and "upgrading" was retarded
>>109681734>vfd>Plasma Fuck... vfd was so cool. I can't believe we got stuck with LCDs in everything especially when vfd had real benefits as well. I still have my Plasma... I'm kind of terrified when it finally goes. I bought an LG c2 years ago which I returned after a few days... OLED isn't for me.
>>109680596That's truei used to play on 800 DPI and started to have this issue, i switched to 1600 DPI and i am much less lazy checking corners, I am a very aggeresive or passive player, entry fragger i will always try to outflank some fagalso here's my CRT
>>109670577> no conspiracyExplain 720p tvs then. What purpose did 720 serve when 1080 existed at the same time?
>>109683729bandwidth, 720p/1080iyour standard tv cable signal at the time didn't have the bandwidth for 1080p, nor the components in tv's had the capability (maybe some rare ones did).>>109670577true, it was a technological regression in some spaces though. like removing the subwoofer(s) from a speaker system, most didn't care.
>>109681734this is why i stopped talking. what good is it saying "you are a poor jeet" a thousand times? we didnt finish squeezing this tech dry, and any complaint only reveals how little people understand what was under the hood and how to get the most out of it.
>>109683648Yeah 1600 just feels right.
>>109681369he's right anon, you're objectively a moron, all you've proved is that you will die alone.>>109681016Harmonics buddy, I definitely got tube whine at 85hz
>>109684759not an argument, I accept your concession.
>>109683648Very niceHere's mine
>>109681369>A lower DPI increases latencyThis is not groundbreaking information for anyone, you're not smart to point this out.I've played 1600dpi with ~0.425 multiplier forever for this reason. We always assume e-DPI, not hw-DPI.
>>109686643>you're not smart to point this out.tell that to CS players who still play 400 dpi
>>109686611ooo very nice, it looks pretty.Do you actually use it often? what do you use it for?>>109684657Yeah it doesi do also play on 32:9 though.
I want a CRT too
>>109687972Games. I mean I have a 3 CRT monitors and I rotate them.Usually I use my NEC FE1250 since it makes an excellent beater, high-end enough (110khz 22" .25-.27mm) but not valuable enough to worry about putting hours on.That Sony GDM-F520 I keep as a rare treat. 137khz 21" .22mm, finest aperture grille ever made. It's like an exotic hypercar you take out for a few weeks during summer. And then sits disassembled in your garage the rest of the year because something blew up in it again.I also have this Sony CPD-300SF which is a lovely 20" 85khz .30mm barrel-AG from 1996. It's *perfect* for retro 480p games like shmups. Tho 1600x1200p60 looks unreasonably nice on it too. Something like Starsector is perfect on this.
>>109688190>NEC FE1250How's the picture on that?Because my pro 510 i only had used it with a shitty VGA cable and it look quite sharp and vividly colored for something that was made in March of 2000also pretty monitorthat cpd300sf looks nice, I was gonna play both dos and 1990/early 2000s games on my P3 1.4Ghz buildstarsector looks prettyis the gdm f520 really that unreliable?
>>109670550>150" crtImagine the shipping bill.
>>109688227>How's the picture on that?Quite decent. But compared to the F520 you can tell it has a coarser variable-pitch grille. >is the gdm f520 really that unreliable?It has a funny fault that causes it to eat a specific capacitor very quickly. The video board headers that connect it to the motherboard often develop high resistance, which makes the video amp's power rail voltage ripple heavily. Usually capacitors smooth out that ripple, but this ripple is so heavy (+-2 volts on a 12V rail) it eventually degrades those capacitors enough where they no longer can do their job, and the voltage ripple bleeds to the image as very ugly ghosting. As if you were using a shitty VGA cable, but it comes from the monitor itself. The permanent solution would be to bypass those bad contacts on that rail, but I've been too lazy to do that and just keep replacing that same capacitor whenever it begins failing!
>>109688343it looks great!i like how the nec aesthetics lookas for my 510 i kinda meant that i have a garbo VGA cable with not much thickness to it, i'm glad that these 22 inch monitors don't have a permanent cable attached, gonna get a BNC one tooWait so on that f520Why not actually spend some time and actually fix that rather than replace the caps when it fails?sounds like a nice monitor to actually use day to daybut regardless why is it that Sony monitors tend to be unreliable compared to Diamondtrons?
I am really sad about CRT prices increasingId love to stock up on a few more high end modelsCurrently I have 6 perfectly functioning ones and a few more with issues
>>109688402>but regardless why is it that Sony monitors tend to be unreliable compared to Diamondtrons?Curved Trinitrons are very unreliable because of faulty ics.CR1 chassis Trinitrons (F520, G520) are unreliable because they have a lot to go wrong and they started cheaping out on themG1 chassis Trinitrons are pretty reliableBut all CRTs can fail at any point these days
>>109688402>Why not actually spend some time and actually fix that rather than replace the caps when it fails?Because researching how and where and with what kind of wire should I create the jump is work I keep procrastinating on. Doing such original mods to a monitor this priceless is rather stressful, so I keep putting it off.>but regardless why is it that Sony monitors tend to be unreliable compared to Diamondtrons?Over-engineering. They've just always had more advanced technology in their chassi. Diamondtrons feel down right primitive once you've seen the power of CR1's DCNV system. Mitsubishi was manually taping convergence strips to their tubes to the very end, while Sony developed these insane yokes with a trillion coils to let them digitally correct anything. You're basically given a program where you can just drag convergence corrections around on a 5x9 grid.
>>109688429it's a shame that they did truly could have peak monitors if they didn't have those faultsthat one looks really nice and sharp, is there very same one i got (same unit) before it was shipped to me, i would take this picture myself but my mouse does not work on old PC anymore lmfao>>109688522Okay makes much more sense and yeah that does look complex, digital correction is really much more preferable than strips I do imagine it is rather stressful, although you should just honestly bite the bullet already and do it because at least then you won't have to keep doing the same thing in the future and can just enjoy the monitor i assume
>>109688429>G1 chassis Trinitrons are pretty reliableExcept all the arcingSpark gaps go CRACK!
>>109688553From my experience, Mitsubishi tubes are just straight up superior.I highly doubt the .22 vs .24 pitch makes a big difference, and mitsu tubes are certainly sharper and bloom lessThe big advantage of late sony monitors is dynamic convergance, apart from that mitsubishi is better>>109688560never heard of a spark gap dying
>>109688680Spark gap is a passive overvoltage protection device which sole purpose is to create an arc (and thus a short to ground) when the designed breakdown voltage is exceeded. They look like weird glass bulbs on circuit boards inside CRTs. These are what usually are arcing inside GDM-FW900's and Dell P990's.>mitsubishi is betterlol
>>109688783>Dell P990P991*The G1 chassis ones
>>109688680Honestly the only reason why i picked a Mitsubishi over a Trinitron is reliability and well not much choice, but i heard Sonys are much more high maintenance
>>109680024do it, it makes a tremendous difference.i used to be a pretty good quake 3 player, then around 2002 switched to lcd. at the time i wasn't playing that much anymore and didn't really notice a huge difference, maybe my eyes got tired quicker and stopped playing altogether. 20 years later i got a sony pvm to watch some old 90s sitcoms. bored one day and booted up elden ring. jfc...couldn't believe it. the world actually looked like how reality looked, not fidelity wise, but everything stayed so sharp in motion. 2d games like mario, axiom verge, hyperlightdrifter, the sharpness was unbelievable. i was lucky this was just before the crt rush so i obtained some nice 21" eizo's as a few crt projectors. beware though, i can't stand playing on anything but crt anymore. ignorance is bliss..>>109688314yeah about $1000 internationally. good thing i could get others locally.
>>109669616crts gave me eye cancer. couldnt go more than 2 hrs until eyes get watery. never had that issue with anything that came after.
