24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.

UnrealCpu said:
oh ok , well i can do that later.
How do i go about getting a cable and windas? I think this can fixed
It doesnt look that bad but is definitly not comparable or worth keeping if i cant fix the G2 and sharpness. I think i can fix the sharpness but getting a hold of a cable and a computer that has a rs232 port might be difficult
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034309813&postcount=5058

TTL -> USB converter. Works great for me with WinDAS in WinXP.
 
If you have any bread boarding skills, you can make your own Windas cable. However, the link that used to have the information is down. So I would have to remake the schematic myself.

Just need a few capacitors, a MAX232 or HIN232 chip, some wire, and a floppy drive power connector (there are more proper connectors though)
 
Anyone have experience with B-stock CRTs from AccurateIT? I don't really want to gamble with the possibility of a scratched screen or burn-in.
 
Riddleofsteel said:
Anyone have experience with B-stock CRTs from AccurateIT? I don't really want to gamble with the possibility of a scratched screen or burn-in.
Click to expand...

My bad I see what you mean now. Seems like a decent service.

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/AccurateIT

Seems most people are happy with the results. However CRTs are tricky business .. since almost all of them are used and old they can be more unpredictable.
 
Last edited:
They are selling a HP version of the FW900 for 399.00 Grade B

I will sell my sony for 199 and you pay for the shipping lol probably be like 120 bucks
 
Anyone tried the newest 1920x1080 by 120hz LCDs? I see they're on the market now, but how do they compare to the GDM-FW900?
 
Well they look pretty great but they are still TN panels with TN panel downsides (poor viewing angles , gamma shift , color shift) also the GDM-FW900 is gonna beat it on contrast reproduction. However input latency between the newer 120hz LCD monitors and CRTs is pretty damn close (although CRT probably still has the advantage).

If you can get a GDM-FW900 , its going to be one of the best possible pictures you can get at home. However I've seen the new Alienware 24 inch 120hz monitor in person and its very impressive ..plus it doesn't weight near 100 pounds and isn't horridly expensive to ship. If I could get a GDM-FW900 locally I would in a heartbeat.
 
SKYY said:
Anyone tried the newest 1920x1080 by 120hz LCDs? I see they're on the market now, but how do they compare to the GDM-FW900?
Click to expand...

refresh rate has nothing to do with why the FW900 destroys LCDs.

It's all in the black levels and some in the response time and color reproduction. Many of those 120hz LCDs, I bet are 6 bit monitors as well. Not true 32-bit like the FW900 can reproduce.
 
Spare-Flair said:
refresh rate has nothing to do with why the FW900 destroys LCDs.

It's all in the black levels and some in the response time and color reproduction. Many of those 120hz LCDs, I bet are 6 bit monitors as well. Not true 32-bit like the FW900 can reproduce.
Click to expand...

No, the way I use it, refresh rate is everything.
 
FW900 does not destroy my NEC 2690wuxi spectra view calibrated 26" viewable LCD.
I own both so i should know.
Came from a SGI G520 and FW900. Fw900 blows away non IPS monitors i.e. something you would buy at best buy.
 
UnrealCpu said:
FW900 does not destroy my NEC 2690wuxi spectra view calibrated 26" viewable LCD.
Click to expand...

Im sure as long as you are sitting totally square with the perfect viewing angle, and as long as you are not using fast moving images, you should be correct. The 16ms response time pretty much sums up to me that you will have ghosting doing things like playing games or watching movies.
 
Whippy said:
Im sure as long as you are sitting totally square with the perfect viewing angle, and as long as you are not using fast moving images, you should be correct. The 16ms response time pretty much sums up to me that you will have ghosting doing things like playing games or watching movies.
Click to expand...

When I was between my p202 and the FW900 I borrowed my brothers 20" Princeton lcd and the colorshift was disgusting. If I wasn't sitting up perfectly in front of it you could not see anything. And the colors were dreadful. I am sure a modern $1,000 lcd will kill some of those issues but the technology to beat a crt still doesn't exist to my knowledge.
 
Whippy said:
Im sure as long as you are sitting totally square with the perfect viewing angle, and as long as you are not using fast moving images, you should be correct. The 16ms response time pretty much sums up to me that you will have ghosting doing things like playing games or watching movies.
Click to expand...

I think that's the gist about the FW900 and CRTs in general. You can get LCDs that have equal or higher image quality in terms of color, sharpness, and otherwise still image qualities - and I can attest that my IBM T221 demolishes the FW900 in the same way that the Sony destroys a cheap TN LCD (okay, so its black levels in a dark room aren't nearly as good but having three times the resolution more than makes up for it) - but they're never of the same quality as a CRT for action. The 120Hz LCDs are roughly on par with CRTs in terms of response (higher refresh rate at high res. but approx. 2ms response time, little to no measurable difference in lag), but they're TN panels of course.

So, so far an individual LCD hasn't equaled or surpassed the performance of the FW900 in both image quality and response - you have to choose one or the other.
 
Blackbeard Ben said:
you have to choose one or the other.
Click to expand...

Some of us are sensitive enough to find even 2ms (probably ~10ms average) intolerable for FPS gaming. The response times for LCDs are unlikely to get much lower. So until OLED makes it to market, we unlucky few will be enslaved to the FW900 for a while longer :)
 
I will gladly sacrifice minor difference in viewing angles and black levels vs having a hunk of metal sitting on my desk.. no offence but to me a 26" viewable screen vs 22.5 inch screen is much better. Internet or HD Movies look fine on my NEC 2690.. If i wanted to watch movies i watch them on my 58" panasonic plasma.. Oh my convergence is way better and so is text clarity on my monitor..

The Fw900 is a good subsitute for a el cheapo TN monitor.. I would gladly take a HP2475 calibrated or a NEC Wuxi monitor vs haveing a mint condition FW900.
The only thing that is better about a CRT is black levels and being able to run stuff at other than native resolutions and response times. I do not see a reason to run more than 60hz at 1920x1200. I see no lag or motion blurness. Your eyes can only 60 FPS and if you dont lock in your vsysnc your not playing the game the way its meant to be played at 60FPS.

I would only see this giving you a slight advantage in FPS games online running at 120-160hz at 800x600, 1280xwhatever or 85 hz at 1920x1200. If you did that though your game would be running out of spec and not at 60hz or 60 FPS. Which would probably give you a advantage online killing someone in a FPS. I remember someone complaining that i always had a jump on people because i was running at 85 hz. Not sure if this really is true or not.

Regaring native res , I just put on no scale in the nivdia control panel and i can see how the picture was meant to be seen , no stretching and loss of quality.

OLED is not coming out for years and when LED IPS monitors start getting cheaper they will beat the FW900 for color and black reproduction. I already know for a fact my NEC looks better than my 10 year old FW900 or SGI G520 viewing windows , photos, and games.> Maybe if you had a brand new in the box FW900 it would slightly better due to the black levels.
oh by the way
HP just came out with a LED monitor that is a true CRT replacement..

Like i said i came from a small 21.5 inch viewable sony G520 SGI version , mint condition from accurate IT and then to a Grade B FW900 .. Those monitors have great black and response times but when it came to viewing windows vista or 7 they suck. too small screen size and for me bulky.

Has anyone actually have a LUT calibrated NEC 2490 or 2690 wuxi or a HP2475 on this thread who has owned a FW900 to add to this discusion
 
Last edited:
I actually got mine for free the FW900.. My G520 was supposely new in the box when i bought it back in 2007 and it was 400.00.
I have flyback issues , sometimes my monitor pops. It has great blacks and color reproduction..
Cant help you for Grade B but i would think you can expect scratches on the anti glare and hardware issues in the future
 
UnrealCpu said:
Your eyes can only 60 FPS and if you dont lock in your vsysnc your not playing the game the way its meant to be played at 60FPS.

I would only see this giving you a slight advantage in FPS games online running at 120-160hz at 800x600, 1280xwhatever or 85 hz at 1920x1200. If you did that though your game would be running out of spec and not at 60hz or 60 FPS. Which would probably give you a advantage online killing someone in a FPS. I remember someone complaining that i always had a jump on people because i was running at 85 hz. Not sure if this really is true or not.
Click to expand...

I respect what you are saying, as vision is to each his own (beauty in the eye of the beholder lol), but I can say for certainty that I can easily distinguish 60hz and 85 hz, and with a little bit of eyeballing, can tell between 85hz and 100. After about 120, I cannot judge anymore. Everyone seems to have their own outlook on this topic. I theorize that some people are more sensitive to response frequencies. LCDs also have a different way of refreshing on a per-pixel basis, versus the Cathode Ray Tube which basically refreshes like a typewriter.

Playing some online games, it CAN give you an advantage to have higher refresh rates, because technically you are getting "more frames" in the same amount of time. 60hz is 60 refreshes per second, versus the extra 15 that 85hz gives. I notice that it seems more responsive at 1920x1200 @ 95hz versus 85hz.
 
Last edited:
UnrealCpu said:
I will gladly sacrifice minor difference in viewing angles and black levels vs having a hunk of metal sitting on my desk.. no offence but to me a 26" viewable screen vs 22.5 inch screen is much better. Internet or HD Movies look fine on my NEC 2690.. If i wanted to watch movies i watch them on my 58" panasonic plasma.. Oh my convergence is way better and so is text clarity on my monitor..

The Fw900 is a good subsitute for a el cheapo TN monitor.. I would gladly take a HP2475 calibrated or a NEC Wuxi monitor vs haveing a mint condition FW900.
The only thing that is better about a CRT is black levels and being able to run stuff at other than native resolutions and response times. I do not see a reason to run more than 60hz at 1920x1200. I see no lag or motion blurness. Your eyes can only 60 FPS and if you dont lock in your vsysnc your not playing the game the way its meant to be played at 60FPS.

I would only see this giving you a slight advantage in FPS games online running at 120-160hz at 800x600, 1280xwhatever or 85 hz at 1920x1200. If you did that though your game would be running out of spec and not at 60hz or 60 FPS. Which would probably give you a advantage online killing someone in a FPS. I remember someone complaining that i always had a jump on people because i was running at 85 hz. Not sure if this really is true or not.

Regaring native res , I just put on no scale in the nivdia control panel and i can see how the picture was meant to be seen , no stretching and loss of quality.

OLED is not coming out for years and when LED IPS monitors start getting cheaper they will beat the FW900 for color and black reproduction. I already know for a fact my NEC looks better than my 10 year old FW900 or SGI G520 viewing windows , photos, and games.> Maybe if you had a brand new in the box FW900 it would slightly better due to the black levels.
oh by the way
HP just came out with a LED monitor that is a true CRT replacement..

Like i said i came from a small 21.5 inch viewable sony G520 SGI version , mint condition from accurate IT and then to a Grade B FW900 .. Those monitors have great black and response times but when it came to viewing windows vista or 7 they suck. too small screen size and for me bulky.

Has anyone actually have a LUT calibrated NEC 2490 or 2690 wuxi or a HP2475 on this thread who has owned a FW900 to add to this discusion
Click to expand...

Also better about CRTs -- a dynamic range of 15,000:1 vs. a dynamic range of less than 1000:1 for LCD. And the only true LCD solution for this chasm has been local dimming, but that hasn't made it into computer displays and is even less available in the smaller TV sizes this year...unfortunately....
 
SH1 said:
And the only true LCD solution for this chasm has been local dimming, but that hasn't made it into computer displays
Click to expand...

My guess would be that local dimming would ad A LOT of input lag to computer LCD's. Thus, it's place is probably best left on TV's.
 
I know, why don't we just put all of the display R&D monies into researching a direct neural interface for the brain, that taps into your vision and your other sensory nerves? Seems like the whole CRT/LCD debate would be rather unimportant then...

:D
 
Rock&Roll said:
My guess would be that local dimming would ad A LOT of input lag to computer LCD's. Thus, it's place is probably best left on TV's.
Click to expand...

It would depend on the chip they use to direct the actions of of the LEDs and how big the "zone" or grid array is. More than likely it would though considering the rapid response required to brighten and dim certain sections of the total grid array.
 
hey large is good my friend, i have one of these i also have one sitting in the closet because it needs a new d-board but im on the look out for a faulty unit to bring mine back to life! there are to i am looking at in the uk, one is about a 5hr journey from me but he is still thinking about his options and there is one about 2 hrs away from me but im waiting for pics info, i think 2 would be nice! they are one of a kind i have to admit - i feel sorry for the people who will never see one in person.
 
Anyone looking to pick one up in the Dallas area? I'm parting with mine for my eyefinity setup.
 
Most talk about response time, but this CRT monitor is better then any LCD on market when it comes to..

-viewing angles
-black levels
-video detail

Yet, when thinking about ergonomics and eyes pain... well, might still worth using as a TV since those problems are not present with distance and movies still look better, or should I say - a lot better compared to any LCD.
 
XSAlliN said:
Most talk about response time, but this CRT monitor is better then any LCD on market when it comes to..

-viewing angles
-black levels
-video detail

Yet, when thinking about ergonomics and eyes pain... well, might still worth using as a TV since those problems are not present with distance and movies still look better, or should I say - a lot better compared to any LCD.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ about video and movies. Really.

Maybe in a dark room the Sony will have better black levels - but I don't live in a dungeon. I like light, and I during the day I don't have a choice anyway. And if the sun is shining in my room (it faces south), you can forget about seeing anything on the Sony.

With an IPS monitor, the color shift in normal use is minuscule. Yes, TN panels suck in this respect for vertical viewing angles. But IPS panels are more than sufficient for the normal range of viewing angles. I never am using my monitor while looking at it from 80 degrees off center - are you? Even then, an IPS panel has minimal color shift and no inverting of colors.

And what about video detail? There's higher resolution and finer dot pitch LCDs out there now - and besides, there's almost nothing in the way of video sources above 1080p anyway. LCDs have better acuity at a given resolution, too.

The biggest drawback for LCDs IMO beyond refresh rates is backlight bleed. It's definitely annoying to see the sides as noticeably brighter than the middle when looking at a dark screen. Of course, that has to do with brighter blacks - but I'll take a screen I can see with the lights on over one that is a little better in the dark.

Remember, I own an FW900. It's great - but I don't fool myself into thinking that it is superior to LCDs in every aspect except size and weight.
 
Some are gamers, but I'm a cinephile and like to watch movies at night with no artificial light (just like in a cinema).

What about video detail, you ask... well, I have very few HD video files since HD is still new and bluray's are still expensive, so most of my video collection is far from HD. Yet even HD movies look great on this CRT, the other video content scaled to LCD's native resolution or they other way around can loose same detail... yet on CRT looks perfect. Then we have the black levels, which look kinda awful during night time with that bluish glow... Watching a horror movie at night time, distracts my attention towards those washed black levels.

Maybe you don't know, but I own a IPS which is generally great, but I don't fool myself into thinking that it is superior to CRT's when it comes to video content... Yet I do admit, that marketing it's so full of BS this days that many fall for it, ignoring even their personal experience.

I find LCD's better for office work, especially if you have to spend many hours in front of a monitor. This days, an LCD with a good panel (*VA/IPS) it's even great for graphics design, or even casual gaming, as in playing games for fun (since professional gamers, the ones that play CS still aim for resolution like 640/480 and 800/600 for better accuracy and LCD's scaled to that resolution loose some detail). S-PVA's could be great for videos, especially HD content, since they're quite good even with black levels, but most still have problems with input lag.

Well, there are some rare models where only image scaling might still be a problem, like LG W2420R-BN and HP LP2480zx (sRGB LED, 30 bit panel) and you seem to afford those but I don't... and I believe most are in my situation.
 
Well this cant be good.. My FW900 made a loud "screeching" sound when it came on this morning followed by it shutting off with the power light turning orange and flashing twice,pause,flash twice again,pause, it repeated this sequence over and over until I pressed the power button again.

It made the screech sound again on the 2nd power up but it wasn't as loud and it stayed on this time, its been on all day without any issue but now im afraid to turn it off.
 
XSAlliN said:
Some are gamers, but I'm a cinephile and like to watch movies at night with no artificial light (just like in a cinema).

What about video detail, you ask... well, I have very few HD video files since HD is still new and bluray's are still expensive, so most of my video collection is far from HD. Yet even HD movies look great on this CRT, the other video content scaled to LCD's native resolution or they other way around can loose same detail... yet on CRT looks perfect. Then we have the black levels, which look kinda awful during night time with that bluish glow... Watching a horror movie at night time, distracts my attention towards those washed black levels.

Maybe you don't know, but I own a IPS which is generally great, but I don't fool myself into thinking that it is superior to CRT's when it comes to video content... Yet I do admit, that marketing it's so full of BS this days that many fall for it, ignoring even their personal experience.

I find LCD's better for office work, especially if you have to spend many hours in front of a monitor. This days, an LCD with a good panel (*VA/IPS) it's even great for graphics design, or even casual gaming, as in playing games for fun (since professional gamers, the ones that play CS still aim for resolution like 640/480 and 800/600 for better accuracy and LCD's scaled to that resolution loose some detail). S-PVA's could be great for videos, especially HD content, since they're quite good even with black levels, but most still have problems with input lag.

Well, there are some rare models where only image scaling might still be a problem, like LG W2420R-BN and HP LP2480zx (sRGB LED, 30 bit panel) and you seem to afford those but I don't... and I believe most are in my situation.
Click to expand...

I agree, when you have to scale content the CRT usually looks better - especially playing old games at low resolutions. And for watching movies in the dark - well, that is definitely a strong suit of CRTs. I don't do that very often - but I am browsing the internet, word processing, and photo viewing/editing all the time. Gaming is secondary (usually done in a lit room) and movies are tertiary.

So, as soon as you flip that light switch, the CRT IQ advantage dies. Granted, I'm also comparing to the best LCD out there for pretty much everything but gaming. At 200 ppi, scaling hardly makes a difference - and for HD, both 720p and 1080p scale perfectly in to a 3840x2400 screen. Of course, very few have one of these - but in five years or so, they'll be back (and with decent refresh rates).

BTW, I'm not rolling in the dough. In fact, I only got the T221 through a stroke of luck (and some diligent research) that allowed me to afford it when I would never have otherwise been able to.

I'd like to see research spent on reducing pixel sizes for plasma screens, myself. If burn-in can be avoided through careful use and frame lag kept to near-zero, plasma screens have a lot of potential as computer monitors - similar to OLED displays but without the potential additional image processing.
 
Last edited:
hi mathesar, any luck with the faulty monitor whats up with it? ive heard its common for the flyback to go on this paticular model,cheap to replace and fairly easy to replace if you have the know how, how ever im just guessing here.
 
twiy1986 said:
hi mathesar, any luck with the faulty monitor whats up with it? ive heard its common for the flyback to go on this paticular model,cheap to replace and fairly easy to replace if you have the know how, how ever im just guessing here.
Click to expand...

Yea it appears to be a flyback problem from what ive searched online, its still working but now I have to power it up a few times in the morning before it will stay on (shuts off immediately on powerup the first couple tries).

This is the first time Ive had any problems with it since I bought it in 2005.(build date may 2002) I haven't looked into the difficulty or cost of repairing it myself just yet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top