CRT: A Gaming Guru.

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: doublejbass
I love the console argument. People who know jack about software design always love to debate it. Put simply, the entire argument is moot because PCs have to worry about Windows and the entire OS overhead and consoles don't.

One thing I'm curious about is why I don't see any more Sony Trinitron CRTs. I had a Dell 17.5" viewable Trinitron CRT a few years ago that had a pretty exquisite image despite being a beast. I've been using LCDs for a while, and I'll probably stay that way, but I'd love to pick up one of those, it just seems like they've stopped manufacturing them. Anybody know anything about this? I want to know if I should go back home and trade out that monitor I handed down and keep it for myself.

Sony's patent on the Trinitron technology is out, and Sony has pretty much moved away from the CRT market. HOWEVER, NEC/Mitsubishi are using the trinitron technology in the DiamondTron CRT's and the results are fantastic.

I still own and use a 17in Sony (Dell) Trinitron, and the image quality and brightness are still top-notch. However, my brother got a 19in NEC/Mitsubishi (FE991SB) crt and it is just as nice, if not nicer, than the Trinitron. So, if you are looking for a good CRT, i.e., the best monitor $$ can buy, go with an NEC/Mitsubishi using the Diamondtron technology and you will not be disappointed.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Originally posted by: Reck
CRTs will never dy wtf is NEC thinking? Regardless if the blacks on lcds improve, they still aren't gonna be as good as a crt. Plus *coughs* native resolution you're basically locked into one resolution. Thin crts will rule the future... I'm surprised they didn't really reveal anything at ces this year about that technology....

Thin CRT's are most likely not going to be used for PC monitors, only TV's, according to an e-mail I got from Samsung.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze

Oh wait a minute, I just saw this review saying it's for "casual gamers", I'm not a casual gamer in the least, if I had a new monitor and power supply right now, I would be playing games, not wasting time on these forums.

That's one review that said casual gamers (without reason for coining that term)... and I'm not even sure that one reviewer meant anything negative about the monitor.

I trust end-users more then "professional reviewers" anyways... have you read all the NewEgg user reviews on the Viewsonic VP912B?

Everything there tells me this is not for "casual gamers"... I would say that term belongs to the 25ms response monitors.

Which aspect would make it not good for gamers? Certainly a 12ms monitor that not one person I know of having any ghosting problems would make this a good monitor for games.

I'm a gamer myself. I've been doing a TON of research on monitors, and if you're going to game on an LCD, then I don't think there are any other LCDs better then the Viewsonic (for the 19" class anyways)... probably several just as good, but not really any better gaming 19" LCDs.

Don't give up based on one loose-lipped reviewer who says "casual gamer". Read what all the NewEgg customers have to say about this monitor and I think you'll see for 19" LCDs, this is a great gaming monitor.

There are some 29 written end-user reviews on this monitor at newegg... 28 gave five stars, and one gave four stars. Most of the reviews are written by admitted gamers. I think that speaks volumes over one CNet review.

Heck, the CNet review you saw yourself gave a 7.4 out of 10... the reviewer deducted points for the glare screen (which is no longer an issue since the monitor now ships with a standard matte screen) and for flimsy cable holders???... yet scroll down a few inches and notice all the CNet user reviews gave it a 94%... once again lots of GAMERS saying this is a great monitor... I really, REALLY think you are giving WAAAAY too much weight to ONE reviewer over all the real people who love this monitor... both on Newegg and on CNet! Heck the CNet reviewer even said "extreme brightness makes games and graphics sing".

Yes I read ALL the user reviews at newegg and cnet, and I trust a pro reviewer than some aw-struck moron. There too busy thinking about their new, light weight, slim, sexy LCD, they don't think twice about the contrast and image quality.

I would have to see pics of this thing compared to my current monitor playing the same games, I have one of the best, or the best, 19" CRT's (check sig), and looking to get an NEC 22" FP2141SB. I HIGHLY doubt I'd prefer this viewsonic LCD over that.

 

[alexandernevsky]

I dunno man, pics (photographs) can be misleading. I mean looking at the photograph you took of your Dell monitor - the only point of comparison is the Nec next to it. If that wasn't there I'd have not have gotten any information out of those "pics" and even that isn't too serious a comparison - I have no idea what lighting conditions there were or how you set up your camera etc. Looking at a "pic" of a monitor desplaying anything by itself wouldn't really give you conclusive evidence of anything. I mean someone could have their "comparison" CRT set at not a deep black and then darken the image just a bit inadvertantly making both of them seem to have perfect contrast in the photo.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Originally posted by: alexandernevsky
I dunno man, pics (photographs) can be misleading. I mean looking at the photograph you took of your Dell monitor - the only point of comparison is the Nec next to it. If that wasn't there I'd have not have gotten any information out of those "pics" and even that isn't too serious a comparison - I have no idea what lighting conditions there were or how you set up your camera etc. Looking at a "pic" of a monitor desplaying anything by itself wouldn't really give you conclusive evidence of anything. I mean someone could have their "comparison" CRT set at not a deep black and then darken the image just a bit inadvertantly making both of them seem to have perfect contrast in the photo.

Well, I was here, in person, I couldn't possibly change enough settings on the 2005FPW to make it even "comparable" to the CRT. Yes, comparison pics can be misleading, but it's still a good way to make an estimation, my pics were pretty darn accurate. My best bet is to see if Best Buy has the Viewsonic.

Not gaming: 2005FPW was better
Gaming: NEC FE991SB was better

 

[m4ch0dude]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

You mean it wasn't obsolete before it went out of the manufacturing plant?
Show me a PS2 at 1024x768 on a display under $200 and being able to play games effectively w/o a pad.
It's just a bad comparison, m4ch0dude.

1. There's not many TV's that can do 10x7, no point in designing a console for them, 5 years ago
2. How much did the geforce cost when it came out?
3. Read my other posts above
4. Comparing consoles to PC's IS pointless, but I was quoting somebody else about that

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: doublejbass

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

You mean it wasn't obsolete before it went out of the manufacturing plant?
Show me a PS2 at 1024x768 on a display under $200 and being able to play games effectively w/o a pad.
It's just a bad comparison, m4ch0dude.

That's also assuming that a progressive television display is noticably inferior in quality to a computer-grade display,

Shoot something far away at 640x480, then at 1024x768. Also note that we had the GF2 in '00. Oh, and jaggies. Evil bastards, those jaggies.

and despite the difference in rendering capability, one can easily differentiate the level of performance. I don't necessarily see it as inferior. Also, you're implying that there's a disadvantage to natively being designed around a pad. I appreciate that design, and I spent a long time trying to find an equivalent on my PC before giving up.

Keyboard + mouse > pad for anything but driving and fighting games (which also don't need high FPS). Period.

You're right, it's a bad comparison, but your implication that PC gaming is inherently superior to Console gaming is a bit specious.

Except at driving and fighting games, which don't need higher res displays, and for which a pad is a good input device, it is. Even RPGs I couldn't handle on the PS2. Fricki' jaggies.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: m4ch0dude
I also remember somebody saying the geforce1 will make the ps2 obsolete, and what a lie that turned out to be. They'd have to make some serious improvements to lcd technology before it can replace crt's, and to be honest I'm not yet willing to trade up my crt for the lcd's out there now.

You mean it wasn't obsolete before it went out of the manufacturing plant?
Show me a PS2 at 1024x768 on a display under $200 and being able to play games effectively w/o a pad.
It's just a bad comparison, m4ch0dude.

1. There's not many TV's that can do 10x7, no point in designing a console for them, 5 years ago

Not too many agmes go higher now. As cheap as gaming PCs have gotten, I think it'd be great to have a DVI-out console that could handle any res (like PCs w/ video games).

2. How much did the geforce cost when it came out?

Dunno. I had a ELSA GF2 GTS in late '00 for ~$130.
3. Read my other posts above[/quote]er, I did.

4. Comparing consoles to PC's IS pointless, but I was quoting somebody else about that

True.

 

[Jeffyboy]

Well... BenQ LCD panels will be produced this month that will be down to 6ms rather than 8ms. LCD's are great... altho LCD technology is not the only flat panel technology in the happening. Flat CRT's are coming out too and you should look those up. Anyways... OLED and PLED technology still has a way to go ... some materials don't last as long as others.. particularily blue. Other technologies that will very soon be here are...

Thick film dielectric. This will be here in mass before OLED. Check http://www.ifire.com
They are manufacturing a pilot plant right now to make 34" TDEL displays which will be superior to LCD and as good as CRT. It will be used primarily for TV's to begin with apparently. Motorola has NED..which is nano-emissive display technology using carbon nano-tubes... it has a way to go. I think the future will see the end of CRT... but not in the next few years since CRT's are so cheap. Altho... LCD sales have surpassed CRT sales as of Dec 2004. It'll be interesting to see what the next year brings.

As for native resolution... i don't care. I like my 1680 x 1050, I like my 1280 x 1024 and other monitors. The high resolution is more stable than that on most CRT's. Straighter edges... just beautiful ;-)

Jeff

 

[Patrick Wolf]

As I said before, Thin CRT's are going to be for TV's, most likely not for PC monitors.

 

[doublejbass]

Keyboard + mouse > pad for anything but driving and fighting games (which also don't need high FPS). Period.

Oh, OKAY. I didn't realize we were in idiot world. As long as "Anything" means FPS, RTS, SOME sims, and "click-em" RPGs. Try playing Super Mario 64 with a keyboard. Uh, yeah, that's what I thought. Stupid people making blanket statements doesn't tend to work out too well. Has that Period turned into a Comma yet?

Perhaps what you were getting at is the keyboard and mouse are better for everything that you play except for driving and fighting games. Good for you, champ!

I find a good television-based game's graphics are far more palatable than a PC game's graphics, imperfections jump out far easier on a computer terminal just because of the nature of the display. If you emulate Super Mario Bros. on a PC display, you have to apply display filters just to get it to look right. It's apples and oranges. It's a shame that you're that picky, you're missing out.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Thanks Jeffy :beer: I hadn't read about Thick film dielectric, looks promising.

 

[Zebo]

Sad times indeed

I may just order two more diamondtrons for backup. In case LCD's never catch up to 400us response time. (which they won't laws of chemistry/physics says so)

 

[Zebo]

And with those 8ms response time LCD's already making an appearance, gaming will be just as good on a CRT, if not better.

That bogus marketing stat is maxium at one color. Averages on the best LCD's are 20ms.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Zebo

And with those 8ms response time LCD's already making an appearance, gaming will be just as good on a CRT, if not better.

That bogus marketing stat is maxium at one color. Averages on the best LCD's are 20ms.

Well... the best 8ms ones are probably averaging a under 20ms (maybe ~18ms or so). But yes, the way they measure 'response time' is a joke, at best. See any of the more recent THG LCD reviews for more details.

I may just order two more diamondtrons for backup. In case LCD's never catch up to 400us response time. (which they won't laws of chemistry/physics says so)

LCDs? Probably not (though I suspect max. response times will eventually get down to the ~10ms range, at which point few people would be able to see a noticeable difference). But there are a number of other flatscreen technologies in development (see numerous posts in this thread) that might. OLEDs and SEDs look to be the most promising in the next few years (though both are still very hard to manufacture, and OLEDs still have degradation issues over a multi-year timeframe).

 

[Zebo]

right, do I still get the free AA and free blurry effect on text too when when using multiple resolutions like LCD has with these new techs?

ed..Face it matt couple fundemantal issue where CRT reign supreme which I don't ever see flat screen ever being able to compete. Why are they doing it. Cost simple as that. Too much lead, too much shipping (RMA), to much glass etc which is not amortized over enough small number consumers to justify continued production high end CRT.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Zebo
right, do I still get the free AA and free blurry effect on text too when when using multiple resolutions like LCD has with these new techs?

Only if you don't run at the native resolution. I agree that right now, this is a problem for some games, especially on 1600x1200 LCDs (where, unless you have a *very* fast/expensive video card, you won't be able to play newer games at that resolution very well). Although one could argue that if you're spending $600-700 on a 20" LCD, you can spend $200-300 on a video card that can push that resolution in games.

But at some point, screen resolution will stop going up (unless screens start getting significantly larger), and even 'low-end' video cards will catch up to the point where you can run just about anything at any native resolution. And on top of that, many people find the scaling on newer LCDs very acceptable (or at least a heck of a lot less ugly than on the first few generations of panels). You probably wouldn't want to run a scaled resolution for text work on your desktop -- but *why* would you want to do that in the first place?

ed..Face it matt couple fundemantal issue where CRT reign supreme which I don't ever see flat screen ever being able to compete. Why are they doing it. Cost simple as that. Too much lead, too much shipping (RMA), to much glass etc which is not amortized over enough small number consumers to justify continued production high end CRT.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment re: the economics of the situation -- but the technical issues will all be fixed eventually in flat-screen displays (excepting resolution interpolation on fixed-pixel displays, which is inherent -- although continuously improving). It may take a few years -- and it almost certainly won't be LCDs that do it -- but at some point there will be display technologies that combine all the advantages of CRTs and LCDs.

 

[Zebo]

You probably wouldn't want to run a scaled resolution for text work on your desktop -- but *why* would you want to do that in the first place?

Mainly because I find 16x12 too small when doing text work (prefer 12x9) and like 20x16 or at least 16x12 while gaming.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Zebo

You probably wouldn't want to run a scaled resolution for text work on your desktop -- but *why* would you want to do that in the first place?

Mainly because I find 16x12 too small when doing text work (prefer 12x9) and like 20x16 or at least 16x12 while gaming.

Get a 1600x1200 LCD, and increase the font size in Windows, then? I would personally find 1280x960 on a 20/21" viewable screen to be HUGE text (I run that on a 19" (18" viewable) CRT).

And use 16x12 with AA instead of 20x16?

 

[Jeff7181]

When I can get a 17 inch LCD for $80 after rebates, then I'll upgrade... till then I'll stick to my CRT.

 

[doublejbass]

$90 is too much?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: doublejbass

Keyboard + mouse > pad for anything but driving and fighting games (which also don't need high FPS). Period.

Oh, OKAY. I didn't realize we were in idiot world. As long as "Anything" means FPS, RTS, SOME sims, and "click-em" RPGs. Try playing Super Mario 64 with a keyboard. Uh, yeah, that's what I thought. Stupid people making blanket statements doesn't tend to work out too well. Has that Period turned into a Comma yet?

Why would it be so much harder than similar games on the keyboard? I didn't like Mario 64 when it was new, so never bothered playing it w/ an emulator, either. OTOH, Super Mario kart 64 was the only one able to keep me using the N64 controller for more than a few minutes before giving in to cramps.

Perhaps what you were getting at is the keyboard and mouse are better for everything that you play except for driving and fighting games. Good for you, champ!

Yes, good for me. Also, FPS, RTS and click-em RPGs would account for all of...90+% of my gaming. For the other <10%, I have a gamepad. Thrustmaster Dual Power. In retrospect, it would have been handy to get the PS2 version and an adapter, but I didn't realize Capcom vs. Marvel 2 would be so addicitve.
However, such things as Halo only show why gamepads suck when they are the only useable option.

I find a good television-based game's graphics are far more palatable than a PC game's graphics, imperfections jump out far easier on a computer terminal just because of the nature of the display.

Yes, Nvidia and ATI have worked so hard on pixel pushing power, AA & AF for nothing, right?

If you emulate Super Mario Bros. on a PC display, you have to apply display filters just to get it to look right. It's apples and oranges. It's a shame that you're that picky, you're missing out.

Yeah, but I couldn't play that stuff on a TV. I'm waiting for my next upgeade to try PS2 RPGs. Jaggies are evil. Higher res and some scaling filters, and the PC will net a smoother game without jaggies. If I wanted 640x480, choppy to boot, I would have stopped playing games at Quake.

 

[PhilipPip]

My Sony G400 is, I suspect, on its last legs (noticeable horizontal wavering of the image), and I've been looking round at 19-inch CRTs in the $200ish price range. Of course everyone points to NEC Diamondtrons (qv AnandTech's system guides, as well as those of ArsTechnica et al), but there are all manner of negative user reviews for their recent models on Amazon and elsewhere. And now I hear that NEC is getting out of this business (what worth the warranty?), as Sony did a little while back.

As a super-anal retentive Photoshop user (the sort who spends hours on gamma and colour settings), I've never considered LCD a viable alternative to CRT. The recent painfully exhaustive comparisons conducted by DisplayMate Technologies did little to change my opinion. But now it appears I'll have no choice but to go to LCD. With the shifting economics, few display-manufacturers will stay in the CRT business, and the quality of consumer-level CRTs still being manufactured appears to be declining (again, probably owing to the nonexistent profit margin at this point). Owing to my colour-obsession, I have always preferred aperture-grille CRTs, but with both Sony and NEC out of this market sector, my choices will have dried up.

Following consumption trends, most of the online and print reviewers seem to have given up examining CRTs. Many sites and magazines haven't given serious consideration to CRTs since 2003.

I'm rather upset that, long before LCD 'catches up' with CRT, the display manufactures are forcing me to convert, ready or not.

 

[MrCoyote]

Well my Sony G410R CRT(19" .24-.25dp) is about to go out. It's making intermittent white flashes and humming noise. I'm looking for a replacement, and it will definitely be another CRT. Sony stopped making CRT's, but if I have to, I'll buy one second hand. LCD's with their fixed pixels and that hazy screen coating, just don't look good. Text also looks blocky and jagged. Color reproduction is also very different from CRT's.

People don't seem to realize that CRT's have a micro-fine dot-pitch (phosphors) compared to the one-to-one ratio of the LCD's pixels. LCD's are one to one pixels. The LCD pixels just aren't small enough on today's screens to produce the same image as a CRT. If they could miniaturize the pixels further, to the same size as the individual CRT phosphors, then LCD's would be great.

Anyone know of a good retailer still selling Sony Trinitron CRT monitors? I need a good 19" or 21" replacement.

 

[slash196]

I have a funny thing to say. I CAN'T USE CRTS AT RESOLUTIONS OVER 1024x748. The text gets really blurry and flickery and hard to read. And this happens on every CRT monitor I've ever used. Ever. So I'm stuck at 800x600 on CRTs. LCDs, however, are fine. I think that's a big advantage LCDs have.