24" WIDESCREEN CRT for gaming or movies! Forget LCD

[Hazaro]

I wish they still made these, I can't find a good one anywhere.

It's as if we've taken a step backwards over the past few years to kiss the uneducated consumer's ***.

It's thin and shiny.

Everyone loves that.

At least CRT's are cheap if you can find them.

 

[jmsanders2]

I wish they still made these, I can't find a good one anywhere.

It's as if we've taken a step backwards over the past few years to kiss the uneducated consumer's ***.

I agree I wish they still made them, but LCDs aren't a step backwards, just a step in a different direction. There are pro's and con's to either, but the CRT cons are purely economical, so naturally LCDs are a good business decision. Just follow the yellow brick money trail and you'll find the reasons to 90% of all decisions .

 

[reclaimer122]

I honestly don't think LCD's can be that bad! You're making them sound worse than Vista! LCD's definitely are a step forward, but like every big step forward the kinks need to be worked out first. If you ask me there is a lot more to gain than just economical reasons. As has been pointed out they weigh less, and they take up a LOT less space. Screen size can now be MUCH bigger without the worry of where to hide the rest of the monitor (or how to move it for that matter). I don't think that companies are exactly "kissing the uneducated consumer's ***." To MOST (read: 95%+) people, LCD is just the logical better choice. And I definitely don't see how LCD's can be considered a step backward. If you truly believe that LCD's are the bane of all visuals, keep believing, but please don't call me an "uneducated consumer" just because I know the pros far outweigh the cons (for my own and most people's uses).

 

[Hazaro]

I honestly don't think LCD's can be that bad! You're making them sound worse than Vista! LCD's definitely are a step forward, but like every big step forward the kinks need to be worked out first. If you ask me there is a lot more to gain than just economical reasons. As has been pointed out they weigh less, and they take up a LOT less space. Screen size can now be MUCH bigger without the worry of where to hide the rest of the monitor (or how to move it for that matter). I don't think that companies are exactly "kissing the uneducated consumer's ***." To MOST (read: 95%+) people, LCD is just the logical better choice. And I definitely don't see how LCD's can be considered a step backward. If you truly believe that LCD's are the bane of all visuals, keep believing, but please don't call me an "uneducated consumer" just because I know the pros far outweigh the cons (for my own and most people's uses).

LCD's have dead pixels. Your argument is invalid.

Score another one for Haz

 

[4od]

CRTs > LCDs if you have the room

 

[reclaimer122]

LCD's have dead pixels. Your argument is invalid.

Score another one for Haz

What? LOL Ok, not sure how dead pixels invalidate my argument...

I guess it's completely personal preference like I said in my earlier post. I just don't appreciate it when I'm being called an uneducated consumer. I know that I want a small monitor with a big screen and low power consumption, easy choice what kind of monitor I should buy. I very rarely care about black levels, as long as I can at least tell what's going on. Resolutions aren't very important to me, as long as the image is crisp. Of all the CRT's I've seen, I would much rather buy an LCD pretty close to any day of the week.

 

[jmsanders2]

I honestly don't think LCD's can be that bad! You're making them sound worse than Vista! LCD's definitely are a step forward, but like every big step forward the kinks need to be worked out first. If you ask me there is a lot more to gain than just economical reasons. As has been pointed out they weigh less, and they take up a LOT less space. Screen size can now be MUCH bigger without the worry of where to hide the rest of the monitor (or how to move it for that matter). I don't think that companies are exactly "kissing the uneducated consumer's ***." To MOST (read: 95%+) people, LCD is just the logical better choice. And I definitely don't see how LCD's can be considered a step backward. If you truly believe that LCD's are the bane of all visuals, keep believing, but please don't call me an "uneducated consumer" just because I know the pros far outweigh the cons (for my own and most people's uses).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say there might be more than economical benefits in the future. Each benefit that has been named and I can see have to do with larger screen size, lower weight, thinner screen, all economical reasons (cost to producer and consumer) with some 'wow' factor if the PR spin is right. CRTs have better color, framerates, and in my opinion along with many others it seems, better resolution. I follow what my eyes tell me and not the numbers in the resolution opinion.

Bottom line, if you're anal and love pure image quality without a concern for other factors, CRT is your monitor. If you see 93 pounds and a big bulky monitor as too much of a burden, LCD is your obvious choice.

I have both, old CRT (7 year samsung) and new..er 24" LCD samsung. Love both, but use my LCD as my main because of its economy.

NOT trying to start an argument or threadjack. No one here can be called uneducated, just some experiences and opinions vary as this topic can become very subjective.

 

[reclaimer122]

Yeah, I think I just prefer LCD's because image quality is not the most important factor for me. It definitely is one of the most important factors, but I just don't see it as being worth the extra energy and weight and size. Like you said, it all depends on the consumer. I was just unhappy about how broadly the term "uneducated consumer" was used.

And I do suppose you are right as to all of those being economical. From the point that I was viewing them they seemed just like options I could look into, but they definitely are economical from other points of view.

Anyways, this 24" screen would definitely be nice to play on but I think I'll stick to my LCD's

 

[KnownKiller]

Well i didnt think this thread would go this route.. Just pointing out that if you want the cake and eat it too then this 24" widescreen CRT is the best deal out there and the only way to GAME.

If you plan on takin your monitor to lan parties then yeah go with LCD.. i really dont see why weight is an issue when you just have to put it on your desk once.

Also another plus for a CRT over LCD for gaming is the no input lag! With LCD monitors you'll see 2-3 frame delay when using a mouse.. Now i've never really noticed this much before.. Hell i never even heard of it intill 2 weeks before buying this monitor. Doing research on a 24" LCD screen i heard people tak about this.. also i've heard that the LG 24" LCD was good in this aspect as it only has 1-2 frame delay.

Though i will say i did notice some delay when gaming on my LCD before and thought it was because of the wireless mouse and or wireless lan.

As soon as the computer booted for the first time with the CRT i noticed right away how damn smooth and responsive the mouse was!

So for gaming you want no ghosting and a great colorfull picture with awesome veiwing angles, widescreen and ofcourse no input lag.. CRT should be at the top of the list over LCD.

Did i mention you can fin these monitors on ebay for $100-275 plus shipping? Craigs list would also be a great route as you can pick it up and save that much more. Where can you find a 24" LCD for that price?

 

[BossBorot]

lcds are a step in the right direction for 99.99% of consumers. For everyone else out there it means cheaper prices for high quality crts such as the one mentioned in the thread so in the end almost everyone wins.

 

[reclaimer122]

Amen!

 

[4od]

Whats the response time on that thing?

 

[KnownKiller]

I'm gona quote the last post in the thread at hardforums.com.

Biggest benefits of this 24" CRT over LCD's:

1: Scalability of resolutions while maintaining pixel integrity (no pixel interpolation). Can even "overclock" the monitor's resolutions using Powerstrip.

2: Refresh rates, baby!!! Even 1920x1200 can be done comfortably @ 90Hz, which is 50% better than 60Hz. Also allows for Stereo-3D gaming with cheap anaglyph glasses.

3. Zero input lag or blurry "compensation" by LCD's OverDrive intended to fix response time on paper. Some call it ghosting, but it's more than just ghosting (when scrolling or moving around in games, there's too much "motion blur").

4. Far less screen noise (glitter) and zero mercury spikes caused by fluorescent tubes. Also allows for a far greater degree of color temperature adjusting, up to 11000 Kelvin.

5. Zero viewing angle problems, amen that!

Another post 2 up from his.. He had a simular experiance to mine so its a good read.

I am an avid gamer, and for the past 5 years or so I have been using the NEC FE211SB-BK 22" CRT Monitor. It's a great monitor but I wanted to upgrade to something larger. I decided to go the LCD route, since CRTs (for the most part) are not being made anymore. I purchased the Samsung 245BW 24" LCD. When I first hooked it up, I was very impressed with the colors, vividness, and clarity. In fact, I fell in love immediately. That is until I played a game on it.

I have been a die-hard CRT fan and I have contemplated upgrading to LCD for a few years now. Each time I looked into it, bad reviews from gamers have always left me wanting to keep my CRT. I would have thought by now the LCD technology would be good enough for me and I could finally go for the upgrade. I recently upgraded my entire PC and I thought this would be a good time for a new monitor as well. I scoured the internet for reviews of the best gaming LCD, and came up with the Samsung 245BW. I read numerous reviews from gamers saying how good this LCD monitor was for gaming. So I purchased it.

Back to paragraph one, in my opinion, the thing that gets me with LCD monitors is the lack of depth. Never mind the bad viewing angles; it is the lack of depth that is the deal breaker for me. 3D games hardly looked like they were 3D…and I have a geforce8800ultra and a quad core mind you…and my Vista PC is rated at 5.9 for everything. I was very much let down by the 245BW. I hooked my NEC back up and was relieved to see the depth back in my games.

So what now? I still want a larger monitor…and I want a widescreen. Just on a whim I did a search for widescreen CRT and I found this forum. I did not even know this FW900 CRT monitor existed. So after a couple weeks of researching it, it seems this monitor is what I am looking for. I have ordered one from accurateit. I am so excited! When I get it in I will be sure to post pics.

 

[reclaimer122]

Guess I'm just glad then I didn't really get into games until after my first LCD Never really experience CRT gaming, so I can't compare my experiences.

 

[BossBorot]

I dont know if its just my eyes or something but every lcd that I have used, and I have used quite a few from cheapo units to the top of the line 20's and 24's, has horrible tearing regardless of if vsync on or off in games. The best of them where a bit better with vsync on but still had noticeable tearing in movies and especially games during fast action. I guess im just cursed with good vision and thus need to use a crt for gaming. Because of this I am overly picky when it comes to lcds. I have tried to buy many lcds in hopes of finding a new gaming monitor but for some reason of other I end up bringing it back. At this point I have completely given up on lcds as a gaming monitor. I have a few that I use for desktop use but when I game I move to my computer that is hooked up to the crt.

I personally think this is a shame as crts certainly have their own negatives as well. I dont really use my gaming computer for desktop use as crt use over long periods is not all that good for you. On top of that IMHO for desktop use and internet browsing where color reproduction is not as crucial as movies/game imho the image an lcd puts out is better. Also if the refresh rate is under 90hz or so I can feel and sometimes see the screen refreshing like you do in taped footage of crts that you see in movies and such. In otherwords I like to pros of crts for gaming but when it comes to the desktop the cons of a crt outweigh the pros so I use lcds instead for general browsing etc.

As it is no monitor fully satisfies what i need but if I had to use only one the fw900 would be it. I wish I wasnt so picky with monitors and could just enjoy whatever monitor I hookup but unfortunately that is not the case with me. If you enjoy lcds more power to you I certainly wish I could.

 

[KnownKiller]

I've heard enabling v-sync actually slows the refresh rate down to the game.. So if the game cant do or hold 60Htz at all times, you'll be looking at lower refresh rates. could be why you sometimes see flickering of the frame rate.

 

[BossBorot]

thats why I said both with it on and off so the problem is not vsync related.

 

[Fhaarkas]

On a CRT? As fast as you can imagine I think.

Tomshardware recently measured the response time of a CRT monitor. Results were: 35µs rise and 825µs fall time for a total of 860 µs response time.

That's .86ms. I guess LCDs are not very far behind.

The big drawback for LCDs are the color and response time. Which is not exactly a definite drawback really, it's just immature and improving. Once the color richness and response time matches those of CRT's, then let's call CRTs as dead.

 

[KnownKiller]

On a CRT? As fast as you can imagine I think.

That's .86ms. I guess LCDs are not very far behind.

The big drawback for LCDs are the color and response time. Which is not exactly a definite drawback really, it's just immature and improving. Once the color richness and response time matches those of CRT's, then let's call CRTs as dead.

Well thats the prob.. they going backwards with the new TN panels there using now which are cheaper for better response times. There only 6bit panels insted of the older models which are 8bit and slower. If you want a good decent picture you must spend around 450-650+ for the 8bit panels and also are 8ms response time. Even with those panels, crt still wins out with better color and perfect response time and perfect veiwing angles.

Really the only thing LCDs have over crt is sharp text.. which a few have said use both LCD for browsing the web and CRT for gaming and movies.

I still have not tried it, but a few people have stated that using good quallity BNC cables with this 24" CRT gives you clearer text. Personally i just changed the text to bold and i can read it just fine.

 

[BossBorot]

On a CRT? As fast as you can imagine I think.

That's .86ms. I guess LCDs are not very far behind.

The big drawback for LCDs are the color and response time. Which is not exactly a definite drawback really, it's just immature and improving. Once the color richness and response time matches those of CRT's, then let's call CRTs as dead.

there is no offical standard for measuring lcd reponce time and the ratings that you see on retail monitors are grosely exagerated generally speaking. Often times grey to grey is measured instead of the better measurement of black to white. Grey to grey responce time is generally speaking twice as fast and thus that is what most lcds are listed under even though black to white more realistic. Basically the best lcd can prob, in my estimation, do 6-8ms black to white which is far diff then .86.