If CRTs were still mass produced, how would they have improved by today?

[snozski]

My first post but a long long time lurker here.

I'm still using a Lacie electron blue IV 22" CRT, I've been waiting for OLED FED SED whatever since I bought my first LCD and hated it, it was a TN £240 Samsung but at the time it got good reviews ( it was TN panel but IPS screens were super expensive back then).


People who visit my apartment actually take the piss for owning such a "old bad monitor" even though its far superior to anything LCD's can offer as far as I know. I actually own 7 22" Diamondtron screens (iiyama/mitsubishi/nec etc) that are piled up in my bedroom which I bought over a period of time off Ebay. I have plenty of back up if this Lacie dies, the lacie is the best of the bunch though. I have looked for FWD900 for ages and ages but they are super hard to find in the UK and when they do come up people will not send them via courier and charge £500 for them.


Lately I have to admit I'm getting sick of using 4:3 some games either don't support 4:3 properly or you cant see parts of the screen which are meant to be seen. I;'ve been looking at high bracket IPS panels to buy but all that I found have some form of negatives, I have a dream I can hold on till OLED panels finally see the light of day in the monitor space but that day still does not seem any closed ? Maybe 2018 ? Maybe.

Anyway TLDR : It was a huge shame CRT's stopped being produced as others have said in this thread 24" CRT is pretty much the perfect monitor for pc gaming and imagine the advances they would have made by now, maybe not not huge leaps but even small improvements would have made a near perfect display technology even better

 

[cyclone3d]

never hear a whine on mine - perhaps you had a bad one. And I use 85 hz for desktop use, and 140 hz for gaming, so flicker isn't an issue.

I could hear almost all CRT monitors. Being in a store with computers on display was very irritating to say the least.

I could hear the whine on every single CRT monitor and TV I ever owned as well.

 

[spacediver]

all my trinitrons are completely silent. From what I understand, a whining CRT means that it's malfunctioning/aging. It's not a property of normal operation.

 

[Zepher]

I personally have been happy with LCD, that 20" Sony in the middle weighs much more than my 3 LCD screens.

 

[SH1]

If the monitor is off, then the phosphor "brightness" is not contributing jack shit to anything. Unless by phosphor brightness you mean the actual lightness of the phosphor material itself. And if you mean this, I'd like to know where you got this idea.

Last time this "darker phosphor" issue came up, it appeared to be a case of the filter having been removed from his FW900 and him not realizing that most other monitors have a baked on or otherwise integrated filter that can't be removed. And as a consequence he thought the FW900 just had lighter phosphor material.

(If CRT had continued, maybe upgrading their manufacturing to apply a filter properly, like they did with the F520, would have been one of the things Sony would have gotten sorted...)

 

[XoR]

@spacediver
you are right, this is image of monitor off:

and this is the same monitor on calibrated to 0.03cd/m2

but seriously, black level of FW900 that is on at non-perfect lighting condition will be not better than 'brightness' of its screen at that lighting conditions which itself make it necessary to have perfect pitch-black room otherwise blacks will be worse than on good LCD

as for what I am about display black screen and move cursor around with 100% contrast. Its obvious that except normal cursor there is:
- enlarged blurry image of cursor
- circular halo around cursor few centimeter in diameter
- actual sharp reflection seen nicely from non-perfect angle

now display green small square, like 32x32 and you will seem similar thing but all those additional images will be green

now tell me which of those additional images is caused by electrons scattering from phosphor or aperture grille? How it would even be possible that electrons would scatter and then nicely hit only green places on phosphor? Shouldn't scattered electrons hit randomly all spots giving gray-scale halos?

All that said FW900 kick ass in contrast ratio and image quality overall game when comparison is done at night. Issue is that its not possible without perfect ambient lighting condition and even with pitch black room it will still have some issues due to non-black phosphor. I have LG monitor at work from 2005 and its phosphor is almost-black and image quality superior to FW900. Its electronic is crap compared to FW900, its tube is shadow mask based and it cannot come even close to levels of brightness that I can squeeze out of FW900 but all in all I would prefer it to games if it was sold in 24" 16:10 version with better resolutions over FW900. Now if SONY made Trinitron monitor with better phosphor it would be ridiculously better than FW900. They just did not squeeze everything from CRT tech they could have if they deceloped and produced them for some more time. Its sad but its true. This topic is about what could have been improved and answer is easy: phosphor

Other than that they would have obviously made CRT monitors with built-in DACs and DVI-D inputs which would improve sharpness. Better aperture grille with smaller dot size would improve resolution limits almo making res like 1920x1200 much sharper. CRTs would be able to hit 4K easily. Monitors larger than FW900 would also be possible, cause why not? Maybe not much larger but true 24" would have been definitely possible and would still fit on my desk easily. Thinner CRTs would probably be also possible with some tricks from HDTVs though it would not really be best thing to do on computer monitor cause those tricks degrade sharpness. Still if there were no LCD at all we would definitely see bigger CRT monitors with such things used that would have more compact sizes... Wide gamut and with DVI inputs even hardware calibration (gamut remapping) would be quite easy and straightforward things to implement.

 

[spacediver]

now display green small square, like 32x32 and you will seem similar thing but all those additional images will be green

now tell me which of those additional images is caused by electrons scattering from phosphor or aperture grille? How it would even be possible that electrons would scatter and then nicely hit only green places on phosphor? Shouldn't scattered electrons hit randomly all spots giving gray-scale halos?

This is a good observation, and it suggests that the halation is due to two factors:

1) forward scattering of electrons as they make their way through the (green) phosphor layer.

2) internal reflections of green light.

You are correct that in this situation, electron back scattering could not explain the selectively green halo.


As for the issue of brighter vs darker phosphors, what you seem to be getting at is this:

The phosphor layer itself has a certain amount of reflectance - that is, incoming light (from ambient sources) will transmit through the glass, and strike the phosphor layer, and that same light will be reflected. If the reflectance of that phosphor layer is high (in which case, it would appear white, like paper), then contrast will suffer.

This makes sense, but I have not come across this idea in any text I've read, although the idea of using a darker mask to improve contrast has been mentioned, and this is consistent with your claim.

I do wonder though - how much of the reflected light from ambient sources is due to the glass, rather than the phosphor layer itself.

 

[SH1]

@spacediver
you are right, this is image of monitor off:

and this is the same monitor on calibrated to 0.03cd/m2

but seriously, black level of FW900 that is on at non-perfect lighting condition will be not better than 'brightness' of its screen at that lighting conditions which itself make it necessary to have perfect pitch-black room otherwise blacks will be worse than on good LCD

as for what I am about display black screen and move cursor around with 100% contrast. Its obvious that except normal cursor there is:
- enlarged blurry image of cursor
- circular halo around cursor few centimeter in diameter
- actual sharp reflection seen nicely from non-perfect angle

now display green small square, like 32x32 and you will seem similar thing but all those additional images will be green

now tell me which of those additional images is caused by electrons scattering from phosphor or aperture grille? How it would even be possible that electrons would scatter and then nicely hit only green places on phosphor? Shouldn't scattered electrons hit randomly all spots giving gray-scale halos?

All that said FW900 kick ass in contrast ratio and image quality overall game when comparison is done at night. Issue is that its not possible without perfect ambient lighting condition and even with pitch black room it will still have some issues due to non-black phosphor. I have LG monitor at work from 2005 and its phosphor is almost-black and image quality superior to FW900. Its electronic is crap compared to FW900, its tube is shadow mask based and it cannot come even close to levels of brightness that I can squeeze out of FW900 but all in all I would prefer it to games if it was sold in 24" 16:10 version with better resolutions over FW900. Now if SONY made Trinitron monitor with better phosphor it would be ridiculously better than FW900. They just did not squeeze everything from CRT tech they could have if they deceloped and produced them for some more time. Its sad but its true. This topic is about what could have been improved and answer is easy: phosphor

Other than that they would have obviously made CRT monitors with built-in DACs and DVI-D inputs which would improve sharpness. Better aperture grille with smaller dot size would improve resolution limits almo making res like 1920x1200 much sharper. CRTs would be able to hit 4K easily. Monitors larger than FW900 would also be possible, cause why not? Maybe not much larger but true 24" would have been definitely possible and would still fit on my desk easily. Thinner CRTs would probably be also possible with some tricks from HDTVs though it would not really be best thing to do on computer monitor cause those tricks degrade sharpness. Still if there were no LCD at all we would definitely see bigger CRT monitors with such things used that would have more compact sizes... Wide gamut and with DVI inputs even hardware calibration (gamut remapping) would be quite easy and straightforward things to implement.

This darker phosphors thing is nonsense. You need to apply an antiglare filter to your FW900 or buy another one with it intact. FW900 phosphors are light colored grey just like other CRTs as have been CRTs from the beginning of time. (It's just you can't see it, because other CRT monitors have antiglare filters you can't so easily remove.)

 

[SH1]

As to the larger points about the need for ambient light control to truly appreciate CRTs or OLEDs or any technology that derives part of its advantage from truer blacks I certainly agree. And also as to the point that CRT tech still had plenty of room to develop and improve even further and it's a shame it didn't get that chance...

 

[Godmachine]

This is why I hesitate to get a FW900. It sounds like a huge pain in the ass to calibrate and deal with the connections and software issues. Not to mention probably having to crack it open and actually adjust voltages to get the right output.

Its tempting though to buy a pre-calibrated and adjusted model from Vito.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

This is why I hesitate to get a FW900. It sounds like a huge pain in the ass to calibrate and deal with the connections and software issues. Not to mention probably having to crack it open and actually adjust voltages to get the right output.

Its tempting though to buy a pre-calibrated and adjusted model from Vito.

Your choice. It's not that hard to do though. And regardless if you get one from Vito, you'll eventually need to recalibrate it.

 

[i2abid]

man i miss my NEC 2141SB

 

[XoR]

@SH1
no, I had AG on and it when I bought it and except slightly darker screen was still bad with all those issues present.

anyway, I have read about polarizers and I most probably want circular polaroid:

as it should block pretty much all of the external light, maybe even block internal reflections

now I only have to find one with big enough sheet size which is not that easy. I can buy 10x10cm samples of both linear and circular polarizers to test them and see how they works before I spend heavy money for bigger sheet and it is what I will soon do.

do you have any source where I could buy circular polarizer with big enough size for FW900?

 

[beowulf7]

Not an issue:

Interesting that the SCEEDs and FEDs could've and would've been the next-gen. CRTs.

Yes, although they were DVI-A, so its the same thing as VGA, but with a different connector.

Sony had a few WEGA CRTs that had DVI and HDMI inputs.

That cracks me up a little b/c it's like a VCR having HDMI. (Yes, I realize that's not the greatest of analogies.)

Honestly, 24" is kind of big. My computer desk would barely fit a monitor that size, and I grew up using 15" and 17" monitors.

Annoying thing is that now because of the 4k thing, the standard monitor size is going to be close to 27" or 30" inches... in my opinion, that's pretty much a TV, not a computer monitor.

Of course different people have different size limitations. I currently have a 24" LCD and can accommodate 27" from the measurements I've done. But 30" wouldn't fit my desk, given other items I have on it (such as a printer, 3 front speakers, and the computer case itself).

 

[jvrobert]

IMO a lot of the CRT stuff is nostalgia. They're better in a few dimensions than a good LCD, they are not better overall unless all you care about are those few dimensions.

It's kind of like the VHS vs. Beta myth. Inferior VHS did not beat out superior Beta - VHS was better overall, Beta was just better in some quality dimensions but overall was an inferior product.

I was a long time CRT hold-out, I'll admit, but I'd never even consider going back, I don't even know if my desk would hold one of those dinosaurs

 

[Godmachine]

I could hear almost all CRT monitors. Being in a store with computers on display was very irritating to say the least.

I could hear the whine on every single CRT monitor and TV I ever owned as well.

Same. I could hear whine on ANY CRT. Never could not hear it. Its probably something to do with the amount of power going through it and now that CRTs are so old its likely more common place.

 

[SH1]

@SH1
no, I had AG on and it when I bought it and except slightly darker screen was still bad with all those issues present.

anyway, I have read about polarizers and I most probably want circular polaroid:

as it should block pretty much all of the external light, maybe even block internal reflections

now I only have to find one with big enough sheet size which is not that easy. I can buy 10x10cm samples of both linear and circular polarizers to test them and see how they works before I spend heavy money for bigger sheet and it is what I will soon do.

do you have any source where I could buy circular polarizer with big enough size for FW900?

Sorry XoR...listed products look small and expensive from what I'm seeing. Maybe these folks would have something?

http://www.optigrafix.com/circular_polarizer.htm

 

[SH1]

IMO a lot of the CRT stuff is nostalgia. They're better in a few dimensions than a good LCD, they are not better overall unless all you care about are those few dimensions.

It's kind of like the VHS vs. Beta myth. Inferior VHS did not beat out superior Beta - VHS was better overall, Beta was just better in some quality dimensions but overall was an inferior product.

I was a long time CRT hold-out, I'll admit, but I'd never even consider going back, I don't even know if my desk would hold one of those dinosaurs

Only superior from a mass IT deployment perspective. LCDs are easier to set up, consume less power, and are probably better for Excel and such if that's what you mean.

However, from an enthusiast perspective, black level and dynamic range are fundamental components of picture quality. It can be frustrating, but is certainly not nostalgia to try and maintain a basic level of picture quality that folks used to be able to simply take for granted.

Quite the opposite, the used market has given folks a shot at something like the FW900, which retailed for around $2000. For many this is discovery...

 

[evilsofa]

You can get 25" Sony OLED monitors right now, if you don't mind an extra zero or two on the price tag.

 

[dpoverlord]

I held onto my $1,200 Iiiyama 22" CRT for almost 10 years. IT WAS AMAZING.... It was so perfect I could never justify losing my 110hz refresh rate at 1600 x 1200... But after the indent on my desk I bought 2 samsung 23" LCD's loved them now I am on 4 30"

 

[kache]

You can get 25" Sony OLED monitors right now, if you don't mind an extra zero or two on the price tag.

And an extra zero or two on the input lag.

Also, 1080p only...

 

[beowulf7]

^ And since it's by Sony, all of their monitors come with free rootkits! (I know that doesn't make sense, just go with it. )

 

[SH1]

Picture on those Sony OLEDs must be amazing, but unfortunately there's also still the burn-in issue at this point...

 

[flod]

I do wonder though - how much of the reflected light from ambient sources is due to the glass, rather than the phosphor layer itself.

i'd estimate that 80% is from the phosphor layer.

if the phosphor layer were completely absorbent, there would only be reflections from the glass-air interface. then in ambient light, the display would look as dark as a glossy lcd screen

@sh1 you should test the idea with cheaper circular polarizers that are sold as dslr lens attachments. I'm not sure how much of the polarization is preserved upon the diffuse reflections from the phosphor layer and aperture grill, but it's worth a try.

keep in mind that the linear polarizer will reduce the screen luminance by at least 50%

and you need to find some way to laminate whatever filter you end up using onto the glass so that there is no air in between.. otherwise you'll create two additional air-dielectric layers which will nearly triple the amount of specular reflection of ambient light.

 

[cdoublejj]

They would have better glass because of the advancements and recent break thoroughs in glass. they would have more analogue and digital inputs.

They would have more efficient power supplies. Likely they would have more efficient controllers. They would be wide screen and have native 1440p support at any where form 85 hz to 120hz.

They might even weigh a little bit less and use a little bit less electricity. They would also probably be slimmer from front to back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#mediaviewer/File:Tabgamb.jpg

You might also look at the now dead CED.

EDIT: never mind the wiki article on CED dissapeered.

 

[spacediver]

Keep in mind there are physics constraints when it comes to the resolving power of CRTs.

The wider your screen, the greater your deflection angle, and with bigger deflection angles come a host of issues, such as focus (this is pure geometry: the projected shape of the spot grows with deflection/landing angle), uniformity (beam current is less concentrated with larger deflection angles), and pixel deformation (the shape of the pixel becomes more teardropped with larger deflection angles).

There are some solutions to these problems - dynamic astigmatism control, dynamic focus, etc. but these often involve tradeoffs.

Deflection angle can be reduced by making the tubes longer (from front to back), and sharper focus can be achieved with larger optics, but this involves increasing the diameter of the neck.

So yes, you could make CRTs that have wide screen and high resolution, but they'd likely be massive.

what's CED? did you mean SED?

 

[elvn]

High end CRTs like the fw900 graphics professional crt also had essentially zero blur. 120hz TN lcd's have about 50% of the blur of a 60hz TN lcd's smear blur during continual movement keying and mouse-look flow pathing viewport/game world virtual camera movement done in 1st/3rd person games.

60hz tn has a full smear blur. 120hz ips more toward smear blur. 120hz TN = 50% blur reduction vs 60hz TN, resulting in what is something like a strong soften blur effect more within the "shadow mask" of on screen elements. 144hz tn is a 60% blur reduction vs 60hz tn baseline 'smear' blur.

Even oled will have bad sample and hold FoV movement blur. The only way to easily get 'zero' blur currently is to add backlight strobing to remove image persistence. Some gaming lcd's have mfg supported backlight strobing functionality now. The consumer release of the oculus rift is going to be oled and is shooting for 90hz+ with some sort of low persistence/blur elimination tech.

 

[rudy]

As others mentioned they would have evolved into FED/SED displays. I like others am 100% sure that CRTs were killed way early for all the usual profit driven reasons. LCDs only became acceptable replacements for CRTs when NVidia unleashed light boost. And it wasn't really wasn't much different than that when IPS panels were finally getting good enough for photography. LCDs still to this day require 2 monitors minimum for a good experience you need 1 for fast action and gaming and the other for color etc... And typically if you are not Vega or NCX you need the gaming one to be lower resolution.

I just pitched one CRT though I only have 3 left. Nearly impossible to find decent monitors now days that don't have image problems.

 

[athenian200]

As far as FED displays are concerned, AU Optronics purchased the rights to that technology a few years back. There's still a chance that we might see those displays in the future.

I wouldn't rule FED and SED displays out just yet. It's probably just going to take a long time to finish the research and then find a way to mass produce them. They're not anywhere near as far along as OLED, but there are still people researching those alternatives.

If Plasma screens really do get pushed out by the 4k and OLED, then something else will probably come in as a rival sooner or later. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-15 years, we're having OLED vs. FED debates around here.

 

[450]

That cracks me up a little b/c it's like a VCR having HDMI. (Yes, I realize that's not the greatest of analogies.)

There are VCRs with HDMI.

 

[UrielDagda]

I just miss being able to turn in circles in a game and have the image glide by with perfect clarity with CRTs... With LCD it's all just a blur.

 

[athenian200]

There are VCRs with HDMI.

That reminds me of another failed standard...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS

These were basically 1080p VHS tapes that supported HDCP. They were actually superior to DVDs, which only support 480p and have compression artifacts. DVD won out because it was cheaper. It was the Betamax of the 21st century.

In fact, you can still buy D-VHS tapes from JVC's online store, if you're so inclined. Not many people still have the players, though.

 

[nintari]

I just miss being able to turn in circles in a game and have the image glide by with perfect clarity with CRTs... With LCD it's all just a blur.

I've actually been incredibly happy with my Asus VG278H and strobing turned on

So much so my 2 22" CRT Monitors have been sitting in a closet unused for the past year. I just recently took out the SGI one and seen it went to crap, had to re-focus it and drive it a little harder and it is almost back to normal but the blacks are lacking on it now not as black as it used to be. Still have to get the Samsung 22" out and see if it needs adjusted

 

[beowulf7]

There are VCRs with HDMI.

You mean stand-alone VCRs or combo ones that also have a DVD player/recorder?

I can imagine there being a (very small) niche for someone who has a bunch of VHS tapes but wants to connect to his much newer A/V receiver using a single cable, HDMI.