Check out the game I'm working on. Coming later this year. Wishlist on Steam for our game: store.steampowered.com/app/18... Follow me at Discord: / discord
The difficult part isn’t to believe the superiority of crt… the difficult part is to go to a store and buy one. Not to mention find a shop to service an old one. The last shop that I knew that they did it… has been closed for a couple of years.😢
Getting your hands on a working CRT is difficult but the very next video I'm currently working on covers some of the most effective ways of getting a CRT. I didn't mention it in this video because it really was beyond the scale of what I wanted to focus on. But expect a video soon that covers this.
@@GTXDashI don't think it's hard to get a CRT, it's hard to find a high quality CRT. Ideally you'd want something capable of pushing 1080P+ and as of right now you'll pay hundreds to get ahold of one
I am crying right now. My dad used to have a huge ass Sony CRT TV in the basement which he threw out a week ago. Now that I watched this video, I found out that it was the Sony KV-40XBR700 which is one of the Holy Grail's of CRTs.
Damn, man. Sorry to hear that. One of the best for playing retro consoles. I know what it feels like because my dad threw away a ViewSonic desktop CRT like 5 years ago. I feel sick every time I think about it.
Don't be too upset. The KV-40XBR isn't that great. Anything that's not 1080i is scaled and adds quite a bit of lag, and doesn't look that great. Basically all 1080i content is 16:9, and the 40xbr is 4:3. So you essentially are guaranteed to either have lag, or letterboxing. It is by no means at all a holy Grail, and honestly is pretty awful for gaming in general unless you are going deep down the scaler rabbit hole.
@@WalnutOWnah we know how to make them. Not as if the over century worth of R&D just up and disappeared. The community behind CRT's would somehow have to convince a company (like Sony or Samsung) it would be worth their time to re-invest in production.
One of my goals it to make a 4k 200hz crt. Would require a ton of curcuit design work but I think its possible. As far as I know, most crt monitors could display higher resolutions, but the circuitry inside driveing the electron gun wasn't designed for the inputs
Great video. To my understanding, the reason CRT computer monitors have more visible flicker at 60hz than their television counterparts is due to the choise of phosphors. Shorter persistence phosphors dont leave as long trails, but result in more visible flicker.
Sub pixel light scatter is something no other technology has been able to recreate... there is something so realistic and true to the light that emits from the phosphorous grid... skin looks like skin in a way that has depth, unlike oled or even led. It's like comparing the light of an incandescent light bulb, with an led bulb that runs the light at the same colour... one fills you with warmth (yes, physically also, but... not my point), and the other just feels cold, even though the colour of the light is warm. Incandescent light bulbs emit more light in the spectrum... making it also healthier for us, and... I wonder if light from a cathode ray tube also has that...
You're referring to the natural incandescent nature of CRTs, which is incredible, but you are mistaken on it being exclusive to CRTs, the last few generations of Plasmas exhibited this quality quite strongly, no as much as CRTs, but especially the last two generation of Pioneer Kuro Plasma displays had beautiful incandescence.
I remember when LCD monitors started to become widespread in offices in the early 2000s. Boy were they shitty. Grainy, blurry and un responsive. They only made the beancounters happy, due to less energy consumption (also for the air con) and more real-estate on the desk.
I hate that they didn't keep even one factory running...WE GET FREAKING TN PANELS that are basically e-waste, but not CRTs which are basically required hardware for retro gaming and TV
Great video mate. I've in the past few years accumulated a few CRTs and I can definitely say a few things as a regular 4k 120hz OLED user as a our main TV. 1. 60hz VGA screens have 100% noticeable flicker, 72-75hz+ does not. I run mine at 85hz. 2. At 85hz i don't suffer any eye strain. 3. Consumer sets at 50hz have no flicker whatsoever. I regularly play games in PAL as that's my local region. No eye strain there either. 4. Sony Trinitron's are over priced or over rated. A PVM isn't worth the money or complexity to maintain and their VGA consumer sets have the damn visible damper wire which i seem to constantly notice. 5. Be prepared to pickup some technical maintenance skills as many of these items are well used and even more are tired. Be sure to test units in person before buying something, especially if you're picky or are paying a large sum for a desirable model. I'm quite curious as to why 50-60hz consumer sets have no flicker and VGA sets do. Do you have an explanation for this? Not sure if you covered it in the video.
It might be that TVs' scanlines linger a little longer than desktop monitors. But there may be another reason that I'm unaware of. Glad you enjoyed the video.
@@GTXDash ahhh yes it could be the phosphors and how long they stay excited or the fact that a 15khz set scans lines slower than anything VGA which typically starts at 31khz minimum
It's because the tv sets are displaying an "interlaced" picture frame instead of a "progressive" picture frame. Those "30" frames per second are actually 60 half-frames per second in usa & canada, "25" frames in Europe are actually 50 half-frames, but during those half-frames only half of the picture is drawn. There is enough content displayed to not notice the flicker. also I think GTXDash might be right about the TVs' scanlines difference of 15khz vs 31khz
I wonder how awesome crt monitors would be today if they were still in development today. It would be awesome if there were brands that would take up manufacturing crt monitors again and put time into developing thinner and lighter than they used to be would be cool if it was possible.
It's a nice thought, but the fundamental way in which a CRT works means there's a limit to how thin and light you can make one. Keep in mind that the picture is drawn by a particle beam fired from a single emitter at the back of the tube. It's basically the center point of a giant sphere, with the screen being the outside surface of said sphere. The thinner you make it (that is, the smaller the radius of the sphere), the smaller and more curved the screen has to be to get a legible picture. All this has to be done while maintaining a vacuum inside the tube, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of a CRT's weight back in the day already came from needing to use materials strong enough to do that. Could we improve them with the technology we have now? Probably a little, but I imagine part of the reason we stopped developing CRTs is because we were already seeing diminishing returns.
One thing that this video doesn't mention about disadvantages of CRTs is their power comsumption and influence of "environment" on the image quality. I remember from my childhood that CRT in comparison with even early LCDs looked like washed out crap with non-existing black levels and pain-inducing flickering. The reason is that during daylight CRTs were not able to produce bright enough image to win against the power of the sun, so the whole image became a grey mess. It wasn't an issue during the nighttime, but let's be honest as a kid you could not use a PC that late, or even be awaken and most people work during daylight hours. So the issue of crappy image quality was prevalent in circumstances when CRTs were meant to be used.
My favourite feature of CRTs was turning them off to make the screen go static, then holding it and touching someone to give them a static shock. That was truly the best feeling. Also I learned that rubbing your hand across a SCART connector gives you a small shock. A lot of my CRT experiences involve electric shocks.
I think the answer is in gray to gray ghosting. LCD is ghosting because of the time it takes to change a pixel from one color to another. Sometimes the time it take a pixel to change into whatever the next frame requires are longer than the time it takes for yet another frame instruction to arrive.
@@GTXDash What I was thinking, is that there might actually be a much larger delay than a few milliseconds per frame then what we test. For one, a detector might see the time between one moment and when there has been enough change for it to detect as another frame, but the pixels haven't reach the desired color yet. This might not in itself be as big of a problem if the being recreated is only 23.97 fps since the the time between ec frame is so long that it will reach the correct color, but trying to pump 300 fps of fast moving pictures through a LCD panel, one could imagine the picture could get a little slurry. But ultimately by seeing this transition taking place before your eyes instead of only seeing a crisp image stropping, could also add to the blurry effect? CRT pictures don't have the problem of particle filters that physically have to change alignment to block light, it will only have the aspect of the rise and decay of the fluorescent light when it's activated, which I think only translate to overall perceived image brightness? There is also the whole CRTs being additive light and LCDs being subtractive light which add to the magic experience of our beloved CRTs.
I wish I lived in an alternate reality where SED/FED tech took over LCD in 2005 and then the tiny electron emitters mimicked CRT strobing to lower motion blur.
CRT monitors are not bad and they are not ugly. They have personality and they are robust. People say they are fragile but they are not, you just have to be careful not to drop them like you have to be careful not to drop your flat monitors. Honestly I am wondering if I should invest in a nice CRT Monitor because I rarely play any FPS games.
Just get any old 1280x1020 @85 17 or 19 inch of any brand, should be cheap. I have a 1280x1020 Dell M990 from 2000 and it's great. These resolution CRT's are amazing and give you the flexibility of higher def at higher refresh rate top limit while also giving insane refresh rates at lower resolutions. Plus anything bigger than 19inch imo is too big and heavy unless you have the space
They should. Update the technology. Samsung and Sony back in the 2000s were working on new CRT tech that made the tube just a few inches thick. Would've been awesome.
@@GTXDash LG C1/G1 are the latest OLEDS that support 120hz BFI; even then, they have a (slightly) lower motion resolution than the CX and GX models. Following models (C2, G2, C3, G3 and etc) have BFI but it does not work in 120hz mode. No other major OLED tv manufacturers have good BFI modes. Aside from some oled BVMs, that's as good as it gets.
@@Heymisterbadguy The retrotink 4K has full-fat hardware accelerated 120Hz & 240Hz BFI with HDR injection, so there is no brightness/luminance loss when using BFI, it is the best BFI algorithm to date, except for Sony's RBFI in their BVM OLED monitors, as you already stated, which is able to get smooth motion @ just 60Hz.
@@Wobble2007 well it's BFI is really really nice but i dont know if it can reach the motion resolution of the C1/G1, which is not just double motion resolution (like the 4k would be since it caps at 240hz) Also, the retrotink in 240hz caps at 1080p
I remember when we all started to transition to LCDs from CRTs back in the early 2000's. Sure LCD's were new, sleek, and opened up your whole desk, but it was generally accepted that they looked way worse. The biggest issues were the worse black levels and the motion blur. There really wasn't much of a competition though, the heft of a CRT was just untenable. We all just stopped recognizing that CRT's even existed.
So to sum it up, you can push as many new frames to the display as you want but if it's not clearing/blanking the old frames first you've got motion blur.
Exactly. Especially if the blanking is longer than when a frame is visible. BRI is very limited in this regard. This is why backlight strobing is what display manufacturers should continue to improve on.
The best thing about crts is the thing you can't explain to someone who hasn't experienced it: the immersion in content. It's almost like vr when compared to lcd
And you definitely! Cannot explain to people who weren't visually trained to recognize frames at 1/20th of a second. At 0.005 seconds was where I began to notice anti-gravity effects on a broad scale... my goodness - outerspace not having gravity means that light goes both directions so fast that it alters gravity itself... that is what the physics engine realspace2 produced into the world.... the theory became a reality 100%.
I think one of the reasons why crt got replaced very quickly in offices is because lcds have a more clear picture and is less blurry which helps with text.
The bad part is that people like us whom like 0 lag and blur are labeled as picky and fussy. The very first time I used an LED TV I felt the horrible lag. Unfortunately in the past my family forced me to get rid of my CRT monitor because of space, it was an LG Flatron EZ 17" (t730sh), I feel sad about it but thinking over and over will only make me feel worse. I will eventually buy another one. I hope that the industry will still manufacture some CRT Monitors and TVs as retro is slowly growing popular, the problem is that what dictates the trends is the mass and most don't care about purity of gaming experience. Hope never dies, I keep positive.
The biggest drawback of CRT monitors is IMHO eye strain. I still remember having headaches and sore eyes after spending a late night in front of the PC during CRT days. Having to deal with image geometry and soft corners was also a bit of a pain with CRTs.
If you are ok with CRTs or Backlight strobing on modern displays, i honestly envy you. Here is my story. I used CRTs in school and university and i had headache after some time. Bigger and flat ones were better for me, but still painful after an hour. Some of them ran at 100hz at 768p, also not helping much. Not happening on TV, but i viewed them from quire far. Never had that on TN, IPS, OLED. Friends VA also was okay, but I didn't had them personally. On another hand, my cheap 144hz TN has noticeable motion blur. If i use Backlight strobing it does reduce blur significantly, almost to none. But my eyes hurt after a few minutes. I guess I'm sensitive to that thing.
Yeah when you go back to crt from playing on a flatpanel, plugging in like a Mega Drive into a CRT and pressing jump buttom feels like the character is jumping slightly before you press it. Not a joke it genuinely feels like that. Obviously impossible but its more of a feeling thing, must be something to with your brain being adjusted to lag.
The thing is, many of us did notice it. But because of marketing, the convenience of a display that wasn't the size of a microwave oven, and the prospect of the technology improving way beyond the capabilities of "the now obsolete old tube tech" made us believe we were getting something better, which in many ways, we did. flat panel displays have outdone CRTs in almost everyway possible ...almost. However, display manufactures are indeed still working on the problem. But, because it has been so long since people have even laid eyes on a CRT, almost nobody remembers what a CRT looks like anymore. So most people don't have that perspective to do a proper comparison. But also, most people didn't play video games. Movies are at 24fps as are many tv shows. 24fps is marginally better in terms of motion clarity on a CRT than LCD, but it's very subtle, so gaming truly is the only reason to keep using a CRT, especially when it comes to retro games. I'm not saying we should go back to CRTs permanently, we have made way more progress with LCDs and OLEDs. But in the meantime, CRTs will still have a spot on my desk until a display manufacture makes a breakthrough in completely eliminating motion blur. Man. That was a long comment. Probably should do a video about this 😄
We did! The early flat screens were NOTORIOUS for having a lag. In the beginning it was so bad your freaking mouse cursor would leave an observable white trail. We were waiting on them to get _marginally_ usable only because of weight. A big CRT monitor weights 25 kilos, a large TV would weight twice. Also no problem with image geometry as a bonus. But lag was always there.
Great video! I just honestly wouldn't downplay how great BFI modes are in a select few recent oled tvs, especially the LG CX/C1 and a few PC monitors tuned by Blurbuster. They can absolutely reach or surpass CRT's motion clarity. an LGC1 at 120hz with BFI maxed is incredible for videogames! It took basically 2 decades but we're getting there, finally.
These monitors are just for fun. An average guy shouldn't use them as a primary monitor. The eye fatigue is real and painful. All that flickering gave me so much headache that I remember why the hell I always had headaches while playing some games in my childhood.
Nothing beats a crt! And I have an oled c1, a crt and a plasma so I can say it because I am always comparing... specially the movement of cameras that are very noticed on oled/lcd but not at all on a crt...
LCD/LED has always been inferior but could you imagine how deep a 100” crt would need to be. I still have a CRT monitor for retro gaming, but you need a deep desk, modern monitors take up so little room.
If manufacturers continued building CRTs, they would've improved on the technology the same that LCDs continued to improve. Samsung (before canceling it) got a 30" CRT to be only a few inches thick. That being said, I think the industry needs to keep working on OLED technology to get to the reduction of motion blur that CRTs were able to achieve.
@@GTXDash Can't wait for multi-stack RGB-OLED with native HDR-RBFI, which will tide us over until eQD which will hopefully have a native rolling-scan modulation method.
if you ever want to use these i suggest to get a sunglasses and an eye drop to use every 5 minutes because i remember these was painful to look at for more than 1 hour
11:11 I own both a CRT display @60 Hertz(It's a Sanyo VM4209) and a gaming monitor(BenQ EX2780Q @144 hertz) and I can affirm your claim. They both feel about as smooth to use despite being made about 45 years apart.
you point around 7 minute mark is exactly why I push for black frame insertion in modern displays. because these MF dont realize increasing refresh rate doesn't matter if you can't drive it. currently on the oled_gaming subreddit, you can find people literally buying $800-1400 OLED displays but their computer can't even drive them properly. And its just insane. I could drive a 360hz OLED playing counter strike 2 or hunt showdown or world of warcraft, but most gamers cannot. What would be superior is having an LCD/OLED that mimics a CRT in terms of pixels on vs pixels off, giving that same illusion to our eyes that give us such perfect motion clarity. If they developed an OLED that was say 240hz and included a true black frame insertion mode that kept the full refresh rate, it would be pretty sweet. As it stands, modern BFI will generally double your visual performance. 120hz + BFI looks exactly the same as native 240hz. 240hz + BFI would look like native 480hz.... and obviously having less fps, BFI helps improve. Sure, new 4k monitors are coming that are 240hz, and have a 120hz BFI mode (runs in 240hz mode, but only every other frame is displayed, so frame black frame black frame black and so on). sure, for console, that 120hz + BFI mode might be awesome, but most people already have 120hz OLED gaming TV's with BFI.... not to mention television BFI is superior because both LG and SONY (the top brands for oled tv's) use a "rolling scan" black frame insertion. and it works. hell my sony xperia 1 mark 2 uses a rolling scan BFI and its only 60hz but feels like 120hz. its amazing. watching movies/anime on my phone in bed is way nicer than watching anime/movies on my PC gaming monitor, simply because my aw3423dw 3440x1440 175hz oled doesn't have BFI. so you get extreme judder in panning shots and its clear as day in anime.... yet on my phone which is oled + BFI you can't even tell it exists.... I would kill for a proper 240hz+BFI oled gaming monitor. sadly, we aren't getting it yet. i had that shitty ips viewsonic blur busters certified 1080p display which had BFI at 60, 120, and 240hz.... 60hz bfi made my eyes hurt. it was atrocious. 120hz + bfi wasn't bad, but looked like native 240hz.... and then 240hz vs 240hz+bfi was no difference because pixel response wasn't good enough to show a difference. so technically its ;capped to 240hz with or without BFI. however OLED actually has TRUE sub 1ms pixel response, so any BFI at any level would be amazing. I really want 240hz+BFI.... true 240hz BFI. a solution to the native aliasing on crt displays for LCD/OLED? honeycomb subpixel structure. instead of a subpixel of red/green/blue we need a technology where 1 subpixel can produce the entire range of color in one subpixel. have it in a honeycomb/hexagonal setup. and since the subpixels would be so small, you end up with a sharper display as the PPI would be much much higher.
The PS3 on my widescreen 480p crt at 30fps plays smoother than many PS5 games on my Oled. Not even kidding, just try Resistance, amazingly smooth 30fps.
I love CRT tvs. I still have my "40inch" Toshiba CRT. Play my PS4 on it. The image clarity, sound (bass/treble/theator quality surround sound), color depth, contrast, etc are amazing to me. One of the many things I love about my CRT (and it's a major plus) is that the image & sound quality have not decreased at all over the years. Nor has the image started to look washed out/overlit. Every HD tv I've had (top brands too) have always lost image & sound quality as they start to age & always end up looking washed out. My CRT Toshiba still looks & sounds just as great as the day I bought it. Great video!
bro... not saying i dont like crts but i m not sure if i can take a person serious that talks sound from tv speakers... what about you just get an actual amplifier and speakers and use those instead?
On the topic of latency, do hdmi or display port to vga converters add latency? If so would you know how much? On my CRT it doesn't feel noticeable but I'm just curious what penalty conversion brings
There's a tiny bit of latency from hdmi to vga or dp to vga. However, because a CRT doesn't wait for an internal frame buffer before drawing the frame on screen, a CRT even with an active converter still has a lot less lag than an LCD.
Can be a frame or two, some like the higher quality delock converters can be as low as a few scanlines of latency (which is nothing), so it depends on the DAC quality.
I hope so. If it's a high refresh rate display where 5 out of 6 frames are black while the 1 is bright enough to compensate for the 5x darkening caused by those 5 frames. Sounds outrageous but that's really what it's gonna take to reach that level of no motion blur that CRTs are known for.
Standard BFI, that is straight impulse modulation can not produce the same type of motion IQ and performance that raster-scan CRTs can, so for BFI to make CRTs obsolete, they will need to come up with an effective "race the beam" algorithm to simulate raster-scan, this will also need to simulate the incredibly fast phosphor decay times and phosphor glow and all that good stuff that CRTs have, the hardest thing to match will be the CRTs incredible native image depth, which with a good quality input source can be almost three-dimensional, looking glass, aka light-field tech is a good candidate.
I might have missed it but other advantage crt has over new monitors is that, because of the lower resolution you can choose, games at that resolution benefits in performance but at the same time they look better at that resolution in crt than a newer monitor because of how crt works. The only downside of them are maybe HUD elements that are programmed with higher res in mind being out of proportion
There almost was one. SED/FED was explored, but never really went anywhere. If it had worked out, though, we would have had something very much like a CRT in a thinner form factor. If someone seriously wanted to revive that technology today, they would probably want to start from where SED/FED left off rather than go all the way back to CRTs, given that they'd have to be making new tooling and such.
I am quite a young person so I havent had much exposure to crt monitors but when I did see one I could very much see the flicker to the point where any improvements in motion blur got outweighed by eye pain and the characteristic squeel of a crt. But I understand most people aren't as sensitive to flicker.
I got an Asus 27" 1440p woled and an Acer 390hz ips monitor and with them I am still mid in say warzone and bf2042, but with a crappy 17" samtron crt I am always on the top charts and even being called a cheater. Explain that :P a cheap CRT even at 85hz with zero inputlag is the gaming king...
i used to play with a dual seemless monitor setup of 320hz each and for like a month of playing CSGO every single day for hours, i could barely kill one or two people a day. a week ago i bought a chinese 1990s completely trashed but working 12' crt monitor and ihave been on the top 10 players IN THE WORLD this past 5 days. thx crt
I have a 21" IBM P275 (fd trinitron tube) that can do 1024x768 at 120hz or 1600x1200 at 100hz, it's super awesome for retro gaming, and only paid like 10 bucks for it. Wish I could also get a FW900 to use for modern gaming but no luck so far
I bet it can do even more than 120Hz at 1024x768. My own can do 118Hz at that resolution, I couldn't get it any higher. Meanwhile, I can only hope for 75Hz on 1600x1200. Try to see if you can squeeze a higher refresh rate out of it.
@@elu9780 yeah, thats just the default EDID, technically it can go all the way to 170, at least for the lowest resolutions. However I really do not need any more, 120 is plenty already. VR which is most sensitive to lattency and whatnot does fine with just 90
These are arguably Mitsubishi's best tubes they ever produced, better quality as far as fidelity and IQ than the slightly newer 2070SB tube, much like Sony's GDM-5002PT9 being better than the GDM-F520, despite being older, it's the phosphor quality and electronics being slight better in the slightly older models for some reason.
I have a CRT monitor I got free from someone and I love it. It has downsides like, yeah, size and danger if dropped or if I ever need to repair to, but it works better for me. I game at 1024x768 at 118Hz (the best I can get out of it), and it actually works *very* well, I oftentimes forget that it's not 1080p. As long as I have antialiasing enabled, at least. I did have to scrub the damaged anti-glare coating off it because otherwise it was awful, so I can't really use it without having the curtains closed in my room. I will not be getting any new LCD or any flat panel monitor until I can get something that is as good as a CRT in picture quality and feel. And I do wish I could exchange resolution for refresh rate on modern monitors.
I"m still using my CRT for playing games, sometimes i use the LED ones for some games and aplications such as Adobe Animate, Blender, Premiere but my main playing monitor is the CRT one, Motion Clarity even at 60 hertz is another level, there is no modern scream that come even close to what CRTs can make, there's no input lag, colors are great, natural bloom, black levels.. CRT is the king.
Could you "emulate" a CRT with a 240HZ Monitor, if your PC/Console can only render 60Hz by only displaying an Image only every 4 Frames and leaving the other 3 Frames black?
I tried 120Hz + BFI on my OLED (the LG 65 G1 can do that). It passed the UFO test for me. Regardless of the speed I couldn't see any motion blur anymore. But 120Hz without BFI was already quite good.
Backlight strobing is superior to black frame insertion and is used on the best motion resolution monitors. Ulmb 2 can do it with variable refresh rates. This can actually give a lower lag than CRT because it is not refresh rate locked ( but at much higher cost). I game on an 800by 600 17inch crt @ 100hz, vsync off. It cost about 100 pounds 20 years ago
Yep, you're right. Strobing is superior, this is where things should be headed. But CRTs still have lower lag because electrons are just faster, however, OLEDs are getting close because now we're at the point where most people can't tell the difference, I'll give you that.
There is still aliasing, but I get what you mean about it. I went to check it on my CRT and I guess it seemed less noticeable, playing with 640x480 had the same amount of aliasing as playing 1280x720 on my other PC with a normal monitor; it may be because of the game though.
I forgot the name of the tech... it was supposed to replace CRT with a pixel grid structure like LCD, but, each pixel was a very small cathode ray tube like pixel... that would've been a good replacement... I think. Maybe, though, the motion blur would still be a problem with that as well.
@@ShankMods Makes me sad every time I think about SED & FED, even Pioneer's Kuro tech got shut down, seems like quailty displays are only destined for the professional grade markets.
Yeah I picked up 3 CRT's on the side of the road and the Sony Trinitron 32inch that I got is just amazing. Plugging in a Super Nintendo with Composite cable looks almost crystal clear, there's no latency, and no blurring or ghosting. It just looks incredible, and it has a warmer glow that feels more alive than the artificial light that my LCD gives off.
Didn't really get why Oled can't come close to matching CRT in motion clarity, the near instantaneous pixel response time and black frame insertion would create a very similar effect, at the cost of brightness, whilst having all those other benefits, and a 4k display can drop to 1080p losslessly, just dispay 4 of the same pixel. Yes Oled will never look exactly like CRT but is CRT the end all be all best technology?
The problem is that they aren't doing that. That's exactly the issue. I've been chomping at the bit for OLED with heavier BFI for ages because I'm in a light-controlled environment where I won't mind the brightness lost so much and it just isn't available still.
15:13 IMO the Kega Fusion composite is a bit *too* blurry, should be a middle option that has ~213 horizontal lines and another that doesn't completely blur the image so you can still see dithering but it's less obvious.
The last of the CRT TVs, partiicularly HD CRTs did have lag due to said digital processing unless you were at 1080i. Also I do have a VGA CRT I like to use, an Apple Multiple Scan 20 and 17. Both are great and the 17 is 70khz while the 20 is 81khz. I typically use it at 1600x1200@60hz
And you forgot to mention damage to eyes crt flickering does. I'd gained 4 diopters thanks to crt and it stopped progressing the day I replaced it with lcd.
Yes this is true. I would also say that moderation in all things is important. This is why I won't use a CRT when working or even just watching a TV show. But using a CRT whilst avoiding my LCD when playing certain fast paced video games has actually helped with my astigmatism, to the point where I no longer need to wear my glasses anymore. Apparently, it has something to do with the brain infighting with the eyes because the brain is following a moving object that is out of focus (because motion blur), and it thinks that the eyes are not focusing properly. So, it over compensates, causing eye strain and headaches. The infighting has stopped now that fast moving objects no longer are blurry. Basically, and I'm obviously really only preaching to the choir here, all we can do is to try to understand what our bodies need. Avoid CRTs if you have a potential condition that is worsened because of it. But in my case, it's a balancing act.
huh, that is weird there is eye damage with CRT's. Maybe that's why our parents always told us not to see too close to the TV back in the days of the 90's with CRT's. I never needed glasses growing up until this year, which is now age 38, due to one eye being out of focus SLIGHTLY, and it causing headaches over time sometimes. I have managed to get ahold of 3 old CRT's like a Sony Trinitron, and I have always assumed I get headaches staring at LCD monitors because of the brightness and blue light and stuff, while I never got headaches staring at CRT's all day while growing up. Something about the screen or more natural glow was just totally fine with me, and after 15 years of LCD screens I need glasses finally to stop headaches (though not to see well, I can still see with 20/16 or 20/20 vision). I never considered the flickering a CRT does to be bad for our eyes, but we'll see after I start using them again to play retro games.
I agree with everything but refresh rate with low fps. There is actually no connection between both. There is definitely a big noticeble difference between 60hz and 144hz at locked 30fps in game. So the main rule for the refresh rate - higher is always better, despite the fps. After about 20 years fast OLEDs are finally coming, so people would be able to see and feel how it was on CRTs back in the days in case of motion blur. My fav preferences were 800x600x120hz in the beginning of 2000s.
@@GTXDash today we pay good money for the best monitors for competitive gaming, like Beng XL2566K TN 360hz when imo a crt with 120hz was way cheaper and the feeling... buttery smooth
@@joman104 Are you able to get authentic 640x480 via HDMI-to-VGA? I get blurred upscaled high-resolution image. I am yet to understand what forces upscale. My best guess was that HDMI is just not supporting low resolutions, so videocard upscales image via HDMI, and I get no scanlines
@@joman104 Windows 10 can set up resolution as low as 800x600 (blurred). nVidia can setup 640x480. It is also blurred. And programs just don't work right anyway. I have much better output with Kramer VP-724XL. I downscale 1280x960 to 640x480, and it is awesome. Also, this particular hardware can correct color, which is essential for old fading CRT. Don't know how much use of it, though. Hardware downscaler is supposed to be connected to modern devices which have color correction anyway. A harder quest is with authentic DOS hardware, but then I would prefer not to scale anything, and for that matters I would connect DOS directly to CRT, but then I cannot tune up drastically faded colors
bro its same on shooters. On 240hz all the enemy peeks feels so fast. And when u push the game on lower hz u cant react better its weird lol new tech is all bs
12:31 then you didn't unplug and discharge it, it's like using anything else, be stupid and you will get hurt. Weight is pretty irrelevant considering it's a stationary object. They are still a useful technology and it would be interesting to see what modern materials and manufacturing could do with it.
we need brand new 24 inch CRT monitors and consumer TVs, bigger than 24 is not economic to manufacture. I hope one of the TV manufacturers finally sees the market for this kind of product and start producing them. I recently ran DOOM in PCem which emulated old 1980s and 1990s PCs, and it looks horrible on my display that's why I will definitely buy a CRT.
i have a dell p1130 crt monitor does anyone here know what the ideal nvidia settings would be on a crt monitor like this? for example anisotropic filtering, do i max it out? antialising setting do i max it out, is there any other antialising option i should activate like fxaa or transparency? texture filtering negative lod bias clamp or allow? texture filtering trilinear optimization on or off? should v sync and triple buffering be turned on or off? my resolution of choice is 1280x1024 at 118hz cause that's the max it can go at this resolution
118hz at 1024p is extremely good. You've got an amazing CRT This is how I set mine up (this applies to all types of displays) Anisitropic: 16x FXAA: On (games that offer better AA will disable this automatically) Transparency: Off (more modern AA like TAA or even FXAA does a better job anyways) Lod bias: Either, mine is on Allow Trilinear optimization: On (turn off if you're not using Anisitropic filtering) Triple buffer: On (off if vsync is also off) Vsyn: Adaptive (On if you prefer absolutely no screen tearing at lower fps)
@@GTXDash thanks for the reply really good video btw and antialiasing setting do i max it out? my old laptop can go at max 32x CSAA which i have right on right now
Wow, you are a luck sob mate, one of the best, modern games look stunning on that monitor, at 1920x1440p72Hz or 1728x1296p96Hz (depending on what you prefer, higher FPS or slightly higher resolution), you can also do 1440x1080p120Hz, as far as AA/AF and all that, set it too "let application decide" and go by a game by game basis for what you like best, but do set the global settings to best image quality, turn of any whole screen antialiasing blurring effects like temporal AA that lower image fidelity that CRTs do not need. Oh and I highly recommend using DSR superscaling if your GPU can handle it, CRTs l, especially a really fine dot-pitch one like yours love superscaling, even just 2 times 1440p will look jaw dropping.
When I switched from CRT to LCD back in the day the lack of flicker on the LCD was the main benefit. Even at 120hz a CRT flickers more than LCD at 60hz. You claim 48hz is enough not to see flicker but 50hz TVs that we have here flicker a lot to me. Playing at 60 in games that support PAL60 helps but it doesn’t get rid of flicker. So flicker or motion blur? Best would be to have neither. When I game on a CRT monitor I prefer 85hz minimum for my eyes not to hurt.
CRTs are gone for ever so we have to take good care of the ones left. I think the only downside of VGA CRTs is they tend to cause eye strain, I'm not sure why though. I use 15KHz CRTs for all my analog consoles from PS2 and GC backwards, these games look their best on a 15KHz CRT and I don't suffer any kind of eye strain nor any inconvenience, but when I use the 31KHz VGA CRTs for modern games (even at 85Hz) my eyes feel tired and I feel I have to rest... maybe it's the finer scanline requiring more light or something else. CRTs are a must for sidescrolling games, OLED could be good but has to get brighter for the "BFI Rolling Scan" to really work, my OLED BX motion looks acceptable with this BFI at 60Hz but luminance gets so low that it's hard to see, dark tones get crushed and it's not a great experience overall, that function was removed since newer OLEDs like C3 doesn't have a real rolling scan just a BFI very useless so yeah... CRTs are still a need for video games
Absolutely. I hope manufacturers find a solution to real, super fast strobing or BFI so that modern gamers can see what we've been missing in our games for 2 decades.
You know I have a question. Has Anyone tried to emulate the Cathode drawing on High Refresh rate modern monitors? The limitation re implemented as a feature? It definitely can be mathed out now.
@@GTXDash not what I meant. I am talking about the literal raster of the Tube not shadow masks or up scalers/Line doublers. IE on the 300+hz displays you would get a partial frame that is X pixels tall with a fading frame of the last one emulating the frame retention rather than the black insertion frames. Basically it using the absurd refreshrate to regain the old limitation of the raster the cathode tube did line by line. Giving even new displays the rolling shutter effect. More of a trickery for pure digital signals instead. I don't see anything like that anywhere. By all means new graphics cards should be able to do this imitation.
The BVM-X300/V2 uses a very effective 60Hz rolling-scan BFI algorithm, and so do a few other PVM's & BVM's, Dolby's 4200 Pulsar reference monitor has pretty amazing CRT emulation, but still falls very short of a CRT's motion IQ & performance, the best we have ever seen is what Pioneers Kuro engineers managed to cook up, that is Subfield-Drive, this produces almost the same motion performance as a CRT @ 65-70Hz, with incredible IQ.
@@Wobble2007 Bingo so it has been tried.. also is the Subfield-Drive only on LCDs? I can only find Demos of it on old tech promos. This is exactly what i was asking about.
I really wish I had my custom pc and a crt monitor to try fortnite out... I already found the animation cancel to be as effective as it was in gunz the duel... wow.. that game was the biggest hacker playground for my youth.
If money is not an issue, the usual places like ebay may give you what you want. If you want something Less than €80, then local shopping is better. Go to e-waste facilities, go to a thrift store or pawn shop, and check up on some local stuff on facebook marketplace, or ask your grandma if she still has her old computer in storage or something. The condition is the most important part. There really aren't a lot of really "bad" CRT brands. Age is more of an issue, so get something from the 2000s. There are some really good 90s monitors from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and Viewsonic. but stuff from the 2000s will give you better options and will allow you to expand to display manufacturers that got better such as LG, Philips, Dell, and many more. Sometimes you can get black monitors that are not as much of an eyesore from the 2000s. If you find a monitor that's within your budget, just do a quick search on the model to see what resolutions its supports. I wouldn't go bellow 1280x1024, because if a monitor can go that high then it means it's decently capable in terms of refreshrate and clarity.
The difficult part isn’t to believe the superiority of crt… the difficult part is to go to a store and buy one. Not to mention find a shop to service an old one. The last shop that I knew that they did it… has been closed for a couple of years.😢
Getting your hands on a working CRT is difficult but the very next video I'm currently working on covers some of the most effective ways of getting a CRT. I didn't mention it in this video because it really was beyond the scale of what I wanted to focus on. But expect a video soon that covers this.
@@GTXDashI don't think it's hard to get a CRT, it's hard to find a high quality CRT. Ideally you'd want something capable of pushing 1080P+ and as of right now you'll pay hundreds to get ahold of one
@PJxBuchwild Yep. I don't have a CRT that can do 1080p. However, I wouldn't call them "low quality".
They are inferior, dude
Tell me about it! I've had a Street Fighter 2 cabinet with a vertically collapsed screen for years, and i just cannot find anyone to service it.
I am crying right now. My dad used to have a huge ass Sony CRT TV in the basement which he threw out a week ago. Now that I watched this video, I found out that it was the Sony KV-40XBR700 which is one of the Holy Grail's of CRTs.
Damn, man. Sorry to hear that. One of the best for playing retro consoles.
I know what it feels like because my dad threw away a ViewSonic desktop CRT like 5 years ago. I feel sick every time I think about it.
RIP for the Trinitron🫡😔
40inch 300 pound Godzilla Trinitron RIP🫡🥲🫡
Don't be too upset. The KV-40XBR isn't that great. Anything that's not 1080i is scaled and adds quite a bit of lag, and doesn't look that great. Basically all 1080i content is 16:9, and the 40xbr is 4:3. So you essentially are guaranteed to either have lag, or letterboxing. It is by no means at all a holy Grail, and honestly is pretty awful for gaming in general unless you are going deep down the scaler rabbit hole.
@@ShankMods yeah you gotta find out how to put it in 540p mode in the service menu.
I would love to see a new 1440p CRT at 200hz. I'd buy it
Won’t happen, unfortunately. It’s like going to the moon, we don’t know how to make CRTs anymore. The assembly lines don’t exist anymore.
@@WalnutOWnah we know how to make them. Not as if the over century worth of R&D just up and disappeared. The community behind CRT's would somehow have to convince a company (like Sony or Samsung) it would be worth their time to re-invest in production.
One of my goals it to make a 4k 200hz crt. Would require a ton of curcuit design work but I think its possible. As far as I know, most crt monitors could display higher resolutions, but the circuitry inside driveing the electron gun wasn't designed for the inputs
Same
The dream monitor.
Great video. To my understanding, the reason CRT computer monitors have more visible flicker at 60hz than their television counterparts is due to the choise of phosphors. Shorter persistence phosphors dont leave as long trails, but result in more visible flicker.
Sub pixel light scatter is something no other technology has been able to recreate... there is something so realistic and true to the light that emits from the phosphorous grid... skin looks like skin in a way that has depth, unlike oled or even led. It's like comparing the light of an incandescent light bulb, with an led bulb that runs the light at the same colour... one fills you with warmth (yes, physically also, but... not my point), and the other just feels cold, even though the colour of the light is warm. Incandescent light bulbs emit more light in the spectrum... making it also healthier for us, and... I wonder if light from a cathode ray tube also has that...
Check out plasma TVs, especially the 9.5g KURO Pioneers. They also use phosphors.
You're referring to the natural incandescent nature of CRTs, which is incredible, but you are mistaken on it being exclusive to CRTs, the last few generations of Plasmas exhibited this quality quite strongly, no as much as CRTs, but especially the last two generation of Pioneer Kuro Plasma displays had beautiful incandescence.
The amount of hate in the comments is a bit sad. CRTs totally rock!
I remember when LCD monitors started to become widespread in offices in the early 2000s. Boy were they shitty. Grainy, blurry and un responsive. They only made the beancounters happy, due to less energy consumption (also for the air con) and more real-estate on the desk.
I hate that they didn't keep even one factory running...WE GET FREAKING TN PANELS that are basically e-waste, but not CRTs which are basically required hardware for retro gaming and TV
Everything you said is indeed fact APART FROM.....when you said CRT's are ugly. They are beautiful goddessess.
My mom's old CRT television still works perfectly, meanwhile my 6 month old monitor keeps getting dead pixels.
crts are not uggly. They are very charming
Great video mate. I've in the past few years accumulated a few CRTs and I can definitely say a few things as a regular 4k 120hz OLED user as a our main TV.
1. 60hz VGA screens have 100% noticeable flicker, 72-75hz+ does not. I run mine at 85hz.
2. At 85hz i don't suffer any eye strain.
3. Consumer sets at 50hz have no flicker whatsoever. I regularly play games in PAL as that's my local region. No eye strain there either.
4. Sony Trinitron's are over priced or over rated. A PVM isn't worth the money or complexity to maintain and their VGA consumer sets have the damn visible damper wire which i seem to constantly notice.
5. Be prepared to pickup some technical maintenance skills as many of these items are well used and even more are tired. Be sure to test units in person before buying something, especially if you're picky or are paying a large sum for a desirable model.
I'm quite curious as to why 50-60hz consumer sets have no flicker and VGA sets do. Do you have an explanation for this? Not sure if you covered it in the video.
It might be that TVs' scanlines linger a little longer than desktop monitors. But there may be another reason that I'm unaware of.
Glad you enjoyed the video.
@@GTXDash ahhh yes it could be the phosphors and how long they stay excited or the fact that a 15khz set scans lines slower than anything VGA which typically starts at 31khz minimum
It's because the tv sets are displaying an "interlaced" picture frame instead of a "progressive" picture frame. Those "30" frames per second are actually 60 half-frames per second in usa & canada, "25" frames in Europe are actually 50 half-frames, but during those half-frames only half of the picture is drawn.
There is enough content displayed to not notice the flicker.
also I think GTXDash might be right about the TVs' scanlines difference of 15khz vs 31khz
I wonder how awesome crt monitors would be today if they were still in development today. It would be awesome if there were brands that would take up manufacturing crt monitors again and put time into developing thinner and lighter than they used to be would be cool if it was possible.
It's a nice thought, but the fundamental way in which a CRT works means there's a limit to how thin and light you can make one. Keep in mind that the picture is drawn by a particle beam fired from a single emitter at the back of the tube. It's basically the center point of a giant sphere, with the screen being the outside surface of said sphere. The thinner you make it (that is, the smaller the radius of the sphere), the smaller and more curved the screen has to be to get a legible picture. All this has to be done while maintaining a vacuum inside the tube, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of a CRT's weight back in the day already came from needing to use materials strong enough to do that.
Could we improve them with the technology we have now? Probably a little, but I imagine part of the reason we stopped developing CRTs is because we were already seeing diminishing returns.
At the very end, they finally found a way to emit particule beams without the need for a tube which was about to lead to actual flat panels like LCDs.
One thing that this video doesn't mention about disadvantages of CRTs is their power comsumption and influence of "environment" on the image quality. I remember from my childhood that CRT in comparison with even early LCDs looked like washed out crap with non-existing black levels and pain-inducing flickering. The reason is that during daylight CRTs were not able to produce bright enough image to win against the power of the sun, so the whole image became a grey mess. It wasn't an issue during the nighttime, but let's be honest as a kid you could not use a PC that late, or even be awaken and most people work during daylight hours. So the issue of crappy image quality was prevalent in circumstances when CRTs were meant to be used.
Edited the dat file on my monitor to run at 240hz 480p and the smoothness is insane. I wish CRT tech kept being improved.
My favourite feature of CRTs was turning them off to make the screen go static, then holding it and touching someone to give them a static shock.
That was truly the best feeling. Also I learned that rubbing your hand across a SCART connector gives you a small shock.
A lot of my CRT experiences involve electric shocks.
I sit down at PC, grab mouse by hand, get shocked into finger from mouse. USB hub reboots, monitor blanks. Then it all restores
I think the answer is in gray to gray ghosting. LCD is ghosting because of the time it takes to change a pixel from one color to another. Sometimes the time it take a pixel to change into whatever the next frame requires are longer than the time it takes for yet another frame instruction to arrive.
This is true. But even on fast flat panels that only take a few milliseconds for a frame to change still suffers immensely from motion blur.
@@GTXDash What I was thinking, is that there might actually be a much larger delay than a few milliseconds per frame then what we test. For one, a detector might see the time between one moment and when there has been enough change for it to detect as another frame, but the pixels haven't reach the desired color yet. This might not in itself be as big of a problem if the being recreated is only 23.97 fps since the the time between ec frame is so long that it will reach the correct color, but trying to pump 300 fps of fast moving pictures through a LCD panel, one could imagine the picture could get a little slurry. But ultimately by seeing this transition taking place before your eyes instead of only seeing a crisp image stropping, could also add to the blurry effect?
CRT pictures don't have the problem of particle filters that physically have to change alignment to block light, it will only have the aspect of the rise and decay of the fluorescent light when it's activated, which I think only translate to overall perceived image brightness?
There is also the whole CRTs being additive light and LCDs being subtractive light which add to the magic experience of our beloved CRTs.
Its that gray area my dad alwaya said....
I wish I lived in an alternate reality where SED/FED tech took over LCD in 2005 and then the tiny electron emitters mimicked CRT strobing to lower motion blur.
Finally I understood the benefit of black frame insertion, subscribed.
CRT monitors are not bad and they are not ugly. They have personality and they are robust. People say they are fragile but they are not, you just have to be careful not to drop them like you have to be careful not to drop your flat monitors. Honestly I am wondering if I should invest in a nice CRT Monitor because I rarely play any FPS games.
Just get any old 1280x1020 @85 17 or 19 inch of any brand, should be cheap. I have a 1280x1020 Dell M990 from 2000 and it's great.
These resolution CRT's are amazing and give you the flexibility of higher def at higher refresh rate top limit while also giving insane refresh rates at lower resolutions. Plus anything bigger than 19inch imo is too big and heavy unless you have the space
@@tommynobakaand a gtx 1080
man i love watching stuff on the old tube, they should really start making CRTs again
They should. Update the technology. Samsung and Sony back in the 2000s were working on new CRT tech that made the tube just a few inches thick. Would've been awesome.
120Hz BFI on an OLED was the closest we get to good motion resolution. Guess what, they dumped it...
Wait... what? Who did? The manufacturers?
@@GTXDash LG C1/G1 are the latest OLEDS that support 120hz BFI; even then, they have a (slightly) lower motion resolution than the CX and GX models. Following models (C2, G2, C3, G3 and etc) have BFI but it does not work in 120hz mode.
No other major OLED tv manufacturers have good BFI modes. Aside from some oled BVMs, that's as good as it gets.
@@Heymisterbadguy The retrotink 4K has full-fat hardware accelerated 120Hz & 240Hz BFI with HDR injection, so there is no brightness/luminance loss when using BFI, it is the best BFI algorithm to date, except for Sony's RBFI in their BVM OLED monitors, as you already stated, which is able to get smooth motion @ just 60Hz.
@@Wobble2007 well it's BFI is really really nice but i dont know if it can reach the motion resolution of the C1/G1, which is not just double motion resolution (like the 4k would be since it caps at 240hz)
Also, the retrotink in 240hz caps at 1080p
@@Wobble2007 when I mentioned 120hz bfi, i meant bfi for 120hz sources
I remember when we all started to transition to LCDs from CRTs back in the early 2000's. Sure LCD's were new, sleek, and opened up your whole desk, but it was generally accepted that they looked way worse. The biggest issues were the worse black levels and the motion blur. There really wasn't much of a competition though, the heft of a CRT was just untenable. We all just stopped recognizing that CRT's even existed.
What if you had a CRT with the electron gun where the stand for a LCD monitor would be, and reflected the image with a mirror?
So to sum it up, you can push as many new frames to the display as you want but if it's not clearing/blanking the old frames first you've got motion blur.
Exactly. Especially if the blanking is longer than when a frame is visible. BRI is very limited in this regard. This is why backlight strobing is what display manufacturers should continue to improve on.
I always ask myself why I always enjoyed to watch movies on CRT TVs or monitors.
Something was right.
you were younger back then.
Life felt more wonderful in general.
Now you’re old, experienced and bored.
@@maalikserebryakov interesting perspective.
I'm just 38.
Such a good video my guy, ty for explaining this
The best thing about crts is the thing you can't explain to someone who hasn't experienced it: the immersion in content. It's almost like vr when compared to lcd
It's the brain being saturated with information 1 pixel at a time by 1 electron beam drawing 1 pixel at a time on a screen inside a vacuum tube.
And you definitely! Cannot explain to people who weren't visually trained to recognize frames at 1/20th of a second.
At 0.005 seconds was where I began to notice anti-gravity effects on a broad scale... my goodness - outerspace not having gravity means that light goes both directions so fast that it alters gravity itself... that is what the physics engine realspace2 produced into the world.... the theory became a reality 100%.
I think one of the reasons why crt got replaced very quickly in offices is because lcds have a more clear picture and is less blurry which helps with text.
Crt have been improved as FED and SED but it never came to fruition.
The bad part is that people like us whom like 0 lag and blur are labeled as picky and fussy. The very first time I used an LED TV I felt the horrible lag.
Unfortunately in the past my family forced me to get rid of my CRT monitor because of space, it was an LG Flatron EZ 17" (t730sh), I feel sad about it but thinking over and over will only make me feel worse. I will eventually buy another one.
I hope that the industry will still manufacture some CRT Monitors and TVs as retro is slowly growing popular, the problem is that what dictates the trends is the mass and most don't care about purity of gaming experience. Hope never dies, I keep positive.
Good job dude this is actually great. Definitely will be checking in from time to time
I wish I could get my hands on a decent quality CRT that wasn't over $100
@@bylectricagarmoniya they arent
The biggest drawback of CRT monitors is IMHO eye strain. I still remember having headaches and sore eyes after spending a late night in front of the PC during CRT days. Having to deal with image geometry and soft corners was also a bit of a pain with CRTs.
did you have your crt at 85Hz? I get the same issue when I run my CRT at 60Hz, but I don't get it while at 85Hz+
@@jskilabe5986 I don't remember for sure, but I think it was around 75 Hz. With 60 Hz the flickering was unbearable even for shorter periods.
I think CRT monitors are beautiful, unironically.
wow dude this is such a great video I can't believe it only has 33k views and you don't even have 2k subs... damn...
It's a shame CRT monitors are no longer being produced or improved on
They were cool but my eyes never want to go back to flickering. I am perfectly happy with my 165hz IPS monitor
Honestly the video capture of the CRT screen makes it look like complete garbage. It doesn't really deliver the point being made.
Even the OLED is not experienced only until seen in real life.
If you are ok with CRTs or Backlight strobing on modern displays, i honestly envy you. Here is my story.
I used CRTs in school and university and i had headache after some time. Bigger and flat ones were better for me, but still painful after an hour. Some of them ran at 100hz at 768p, also not helping much. Not happening on TV, but i viewed them from quire far. Never had that on TN, IPS, OLED. Friends VA also was okay, but I didn't had them personally.
On another hand, my cheap 144hz TN has noticeable motion blur. If i use Backlight strobing it does reduce blur significantly, almost to none. But my eyes hurt after a few minutes. I guess I'm sensitive to that thing.
yeah I never had headaches looking at CRT's growing up in the 90's, but I got headaches a lot while staring at LCD monitors once those became a thing.
Yeah when you go back to crt from playing on a flatpanel, plugging in like a Mega Drive into a CRT and pressing jump buttom feels like the character is jumping slightly before you press it. Not a joke it genuinely feels like that. Obviously impossible but its more of a feeling thing, must be something to with your brain being adjusted to lag.
My 20 year old 17 inch Dell CRT looks smoother than a 180hz freesync LCD that I just bought and returned. It's really frustrating.
why didn't i and most people notice these advantages back in the mid 2000s when we started moving to flat screens and it was seen as way better ?
The thing is, many of us did notice it. But because of marketing, the convenience of a display that wasn't the size of a microwave oven, and the prospect of the technology improving way beyond the capabilities of "the now obsolete old tube tech" made us believe we were getting something better, which in many ways, we did. flat panel displays have outdone CRTs in almost everyway possible ...almost. However, display manufactures are indeed still working on the problem. But, because it has been so long since people have even laid eyes on a CRT, almost nobody remembers what a CRT looks like anymore.
So most people don't have that perspective to do a proper comparison. But also, most people didn't play video games. Movies are at 24fps as are many tv shows. 24fps is marginally better in terms of motion clarity on a CRT than LCD, but it's very subtle, so gaming truly is the only reason to keep using a CRT, especially when it comes to retro games.
I'm not saying we should go back to CRTs permanently, we have made way more progress with LCDs and OLEDs. But in the meantime, CRTs will still have a spot on my desk until a display manufacture makes a breakthrough in completely eliminating motion blur.
Man. That was a long comment. Probably should do a video about this 😄
We did! The early flat screens were NOTORIOUS for having a lag. In the beginning it was so bad your freaking mouse cursor would leave an observable white trail. We were waiting on them to get _marginally_ usable only because of weight. A big CRT monitor weights 25 kilos, a large TV would weight twice. Also no problem with image geometry as a bonus. But lag was always there.
Great video! I just honestly wouldn't downplay how great BFI modes are in a select few recent oled tvs, especially the LG CX/C1 and a few PC monitors tuned by Blurbuster. They can absolutely reach or surpass CRT's motion clarity. an LGC1 at 120hz with BFI maxed is incredible for videogames! It took basically 2 decades but we're getting there, finally.
These monitors are just for fun. An average guy shouldn't use them as a primary monitor. The eye fatigue is real and painful. All that flickering gave me so much headache that I remember why the hell I always had headaches while playing some games in my childhood.
Yeah, only use for gaming
Nothing beats a crt! And I have an oled c1, a crt and a plasma so I can say it because I am always comparing... specially the movement of cameras that are very noticed on oled/lcd but not at all on a crt...
LCD/LED has always been inferior but could you imagine how deep a 100” crt would need to be.
I still have a CRT monitor for retro gaming, but you need a deep desk, modern monitors take up so little room.
If manufacturers continued building CRTs, they would've improved on the technology the same that LCDs continued to improve. Samsung (before canceling it) got a 30" CRT to be only a few inches thick. That being said, I think the industry needs to keep working on OLED technology to get to the reduction of motion blur that CRTs were able to achieve.
@@GTXDash i agree that OLED is the kind of tech we should be supporting.
@@GTXDash Can't wait for multi-stack RGB-OLED with native HDR-RBFI, which will tide us over until eQD which will hopefully have a native rolling-scan modulation method.
if you ever want to use these i suggest to get a sunglasses and an eye drop to use every 5 minutes because i remember these was painful to look at for more than 1 hour
11:11
I own both a CRT display @60 Hertz(It's a Sanyo VM4209) and a gaming monitor(BenQ EX2780Q @144 hertz) and I can affirm your claim.
They both feel about as smooth to use despite being made about 45 years apart.
Honestly I would pay real money for a nice CRT monitor. I rarely play super competitive games.
you point around 7 minute mark is exactly why I push for black frame insertion in modern displays. because these MF dont realize increasing refresh rate doesn't matter if you can't drive it. currently on the oled_gaming subreddit, you can find people literally buying $800-1400 OLED displays but their computer can't even drive them properly. And its just insane. I could drive a 360hz OLED playing counter strike 2 or hunt showdown or world of warcraft, but most gamers cannot. What would be superior is having an LCD/OLED that mimics a CRT in terms of pixels on vs pixels off, giving that same illusion to our eyes that give us such perfect motion clarity. If they developed an OLED that was say 240hz and included a true black frame insertion mode that kept the full refresh rate, it would be pretty sweet. As it stands, modern BFI will generally double your visual performance. 120hz + BFI looks exactly the same as native 240hz. 240hz + BFI would look like native 480hz.... and obviously having less fps, BFI helps improve. Sure, new 4k monitors are coming that are 240hz, and have a 120hz BFI mode (runs in 240hz mode, but only every other frame is displayed, so frame black frame black frame black and so on). sure, for console, that 120hz + BFI mode might be awesome, but most people already have 120hz OLED gaming TV's with BFI.... not to mention television BFI is superior because both LG and SONY (the top brands for oled tv's) use a "rolling scan" black frame insertion. and it works. hell my sony xperia 1 mark 2 uses a rolling scan BFI and its only 60hz but feels like 120hz. its amazing. watching movies/anime on my phone in bed is way nicer than watching anime/movies on my PC gaming monitor, simply because my aw3423dw 3440x1440 175hz oled doesn't have BFI. so you get extreme judder in panning shots and its clear as day in anime.... yet on my phone which is oled + BFI you can't even tell it exists.... I would kill for a proper 240hz+BFI oled gaming monitor. sadly, we aren't getting it yet.
i had that shitty ips viewsonic blur busters certified 1080p display which had BFI at 60, 120, and 240hz.... 60hz bfi made my eyes hurt. it was atrocious. 120hz + bfi wasn't bad, but looked like native 240hz.... and then 240hz vs 240hz+bfi was no difference because pixel response wasn't good enough to show a difference. so technically its ;capped to 240hz with or without BFI. however OLED actually has TRUE sub 1ms pixel response, so any BFI at any level would be amazing. I really want 240hz+BFI.... true 240hz BFI.
a solution to the native aliasing on crt displays for LCD/OLED? honeycomb subpixel structure. instead of a subpixel of red/green/blue we need a technology where 1 subpixel can produce the entire range of color in one subpixel. have it in a honeycomb/hexagonal setup. and since the subpixels would be so small, you end up with a sharper display as the PPI would be much much higher.
I wish I still had one. I used to have a 21" Mitsubishi. I miss it. I would even take a 21" ViewSonic that's how much I want one.
The PS3 on my widescreen 480p crt at 30fps plays smoother than many PS5 games on my Oled.
Not even kidding, just try Resistance, amazingly smooth 30fps.
Many PS5 Games run in 30 FPS. But yes, CRT always feel smoother at the same frame rate.
A way around that is to just pulse the backlight to each new frame.
that's what BFI mode do yeah
I love CRT tvs. I still have my "40inch" Toshiba CRT. Play my PS4 on it. The image clarity, sound (bass/treble/theator quality surround sound), color depth, contrast, etc are amazing to me. One of the many things I love about my CRT (and it's a major plus) is that the image & sound quality have not decreased at all over the years. Nor has the image started to look washed out/overlit. Every HD tv I've had (top brands too) have always lost image & sound quality as they start to age & always end up looking washed out. My CRT Toshiba still looks & sounds just as great as the day I bought it. Great video!
Sound from a CRT TV is always perfect
bro... not saying i dont like crts but i m not sure if i can take a person serious that talks sound from tv speakers... what about you just get an actual amplifier and speakers and use those instead?
On the topic of latency, do hdmi or display port to vga converters add latency? If so would you know how much? On my CRT it doesn't feel noticeable but I'm just curious what penalty conversion brings
There's a tiny bit of latency from hdmi to vga or dp to vga. However, because a CRT doesn't wait for an internal frame buffer before drawing the frame on screen, a CRT even with an active converter still has a lot less lag than an LCD.
Can be a frame or two, some like the higher quality delock converters can be as low as a few scanlines of latency (which is nothing), so it depends on the DAC quality.
Black frame insertion done well on modern tvs would definitely make crt obsolete
I hope so. If it's a high refresh rate display where 5 out of 6 frames are black while the 1 is bright enough to compensate for the 5x darkening caused by those 5 frames. Sounds outrageous but that's really what it's gonna take to reach that level of no motion blur that CRTs are known for.
@@GTXDash yes
Standard BFI, that is straight impulse modulation can not produce the same type of motion IQ and performance that raster-scan CRTs can, so for BFI to make CRTs obsolete, they will need to come up with an effective "race the beam" algorithm to simulate raster-scan, this will also need to simulate the incredibly fast phosphor decay times and phosphor glow and all that good stuff that CRTs have, the hardest thing to match will be the CRTs incredible native image depth, which with a good quality input source can be almost three-dimensional, looking glass, aka light-field tech is a good candidate.
I might have missed it but other advantage crt has over new monitors is that, because of the lower resolution you can choose, games at that resolution benefits in performance but at the same time they look better at that resolution in crt than a newer monitor because of how crt works. The only downside of them are maybe HUD elements that are programmed with higher res in mind being out of proportion
That true,I have CRT collection and restoration that I show, repair etc.
I have big collection in France. Colours on good CRT are so much better.
can I trade sexual favors for a nice crt set, please?
Makes me wonder if there is a in between technology that could exist. Like what would happen if we remade crt monitors?
Yep. Some kind of in-between tech would be a good idea. Some way to get the light of a flatpanel to strobe really fast or something.
There apparently is one but it's not very common
There almost was one. SED/FED was explored, but never really went anywhere. If it had worked out, though, we would have had something very much like a CRT in a thinner form factor. If someone seriously wanted to revive that technology today, they would probably want to start from where SED/FED left off rather than go all the way back to CRTs, given that they'd have to be making new tooling and such.
I am quite a young person so I havent had much exposure to crt monitors but when I did see one I could very much see the flicker to the point where any improvements in motion blur got outweighed by eye pain and the characteristic squeel of a crt. But I understand most people aren't as sensitive to flicker.
I got an Asus 27" 1440p woled and an Acer 390hz ips monitor and with them I am still mid in say warzone and bf2042, but with a crappy 17" samtron crt I am always on the top charts and even being called a cheater. Explain that :P a cheap CRT even at 85hz with zero inputlag is the gaming king...
Playing CSGO on a similar set up, Phillips CRT at 85hz. Although I’m not pro at the game I can comfortably play and the lag is nonexistent :)
In MP games i go with 120hz on my crt and im being called cheater as well
i used to play with a dual seemless monitor setup of 320hz each and for like a month of playing CSGO every single day for hours, i could barely kill one or two people a day. a week ago i bought a chinese 1990s completely trashed but working 12' crt monitor and ihave been on the top 10 players IN THE WORLD this past 5 days. thx crt
I have a 21" IBM P275 (fd trinitron tube) that can do 1024x768 at 120hz or 1600x1200 at 100hz, it's super awesome for retro gaming, and only paid like 10 bucks for it. Wish I could also get a FW900 to use for modern gaming but no luck so far
Those are some pretty impressive specs
I bet it can do even more than 120Hz at 1024x768. My own can do 118Hz at that resolution, I couldn't get it any higher. Meanwhile, I can only hope for 75Hz on 1600x1200. Try to see if you can squeeze a higher refresh rate out of it.
@@elu9780 Depends on the monitor.
@@elu9780 yeah, thats just the default EDID, technically it can go all the way to 170, at least for the lowest resolutions. However I really do not need any more, 120 is plenty already. VR which is most sensitive to lattency and whatnot does fine with just 90
great video. i have a mitsubishi 2060u, 22 inch 120khz. running it at 800x600 at 160hz it has the smoothest image ive ever seen in person
These are arguably Mitsubishi's best tubes they ever produced, better quality as far as fidelity and IQ than the slightly newer 2070SB tube, much like Sony's GDM-5002PT9 being better than the GDM-F520, despite being older, it's the phosphor quality and electronics being slight better in the slightly older models for some reason.
I have a CRT monitor I got free from someone and I love it. It has downsides like, yeah, size and danger if dropped or if I ever need to repair to, but it works better for me. I game at 1024x768 at 118Hz (the best I can get out of it), and it actually works *very* well, I oftentimes forget that it's not 1080p. As long as I have antialiasing enabled, at least. I did have to scrub the damaged anti-glare coating off it because otherwise it was awful, so I can't really use it without having the curtains closed in my room.
I will not be getting any new LCD or any flat panel monitor until I can get something that is as good as a CRT in picture quality and feel. And I do wish I could exchange resolution for refresh rate on modern monitors.
amazing video you deserve so much more
I"m still using my CRT for playing games, sometimes i use the LED ones for some games and aplications such as Adobe Animate, Blender, Premiere but my main playing monitor is the CRT one, Motion Clarity even at 60 hertz is another level, there is no modern scream that come even close to what CRTs can make, there's no input lag, colors are great, natural bloom, black levels.. CRT is the king.
Crt started to died when there was a attempt at 29 inches TV that didn't last longer than the other small ones.
I liked the great explanation of motion blur.
I really hope we'll get SED/FED monitors one day although I doubt it... Great video btw!
Could you "emulate" a CRT with a 240HZ Monitor, if your PC/Console can only render 60Hz by only displaying an Image only every 4 Frames and leaving the other 3 Frames black?
Yeah. I've only seen 1/2 Black Frame Insertion before but not 3/4. However, I don't see why it wouldn't work.
I tried 120Hz + BFI on my OLED (the LG 65 G1 can do that). It passed the UFO test for me. Regardless of the speed I couldn't see any motion blur anymore. But 120Hz without BFI was already quite good.
Can you see the gap between the eyes of the alien?
Backlight strobing is superior to black frame insertion and is used on the best motion resolution monitors. Ulmb 2 can do it with variable refresh rates. This can actually give a lower lag than CRT because it is not refresh rate locked ( but at much higher cost). I game on an 800by 600 17inch crt @ 100hz, vsync off. It cost about 100 pounds 20 years ago
Yep, you're right. Strobing is superior, this is where things should be headed. But CRTs still have lower lag because electrons are just faster, however, OLEDs are getting close because now we're at the point where most people can't tell the difference, I'll give you that.
There is still aliasing, but I get what you mean about it. I went to check it on my CRT and I guess it seemed less noticeable, playing with 640x480 had the same amount of aliasing as playing 1280x720 on my other PC with a normal monitor; it may be because of the game though.
Only at the monitors' max resolution does the aliasing stop being so noticeable.
I forgot the name of the tech... it was supposed to replace CRT with a pixel grid structure like LCD, but, each pixel was a very small cathode ray tube like pixel... that would've been a good replacement... I think. Maybe, though, the motion blur would still be a problem with that as well.
FED / SED
@@ShankMods thank you
@@ShankMods Makes me sad every time I think about SED & FED, even Pioneer's Kuro tech got shut down, seems like quailty displays are only destined for the professional grade markets.
@@Wobble2007 I have high hopes for Electroluminescent Quantum Dot and MicroLED
You're making me want to give my CRTs another try. I already knew about what you told in this video but sometimes, an ultrawide monitor is good.
Yeah I picked up 3 CRT's on the side of the road and the Sony Trinitron 32inch that I got is just amazing. Plugging in a Super Nintendo with Composite cable looks almost crystal clear, there's no latency, and no blurring or ghosting. It just looks incredible, and it has a warmer glow that feels more alive than the artificial light that my LCD gives off.
Didn't really get why Oled can't come close to matching CRT in motion clarity, the near instantaneous pixel response time and black frame insertion would create a very similar effect, at the cost of brightness, whilst having all those other benefits, and a 4k display can drop to 1080p losslessly, just dispay 4 of the same pixel. Yes Oled will never look exactly like CRT but is CRT the end all be all best technology?
Nobody said that.
The problem is that they aren't doing that. That's exactly the issue.
I've been chomping at the bit for OLED with heavier BFI for ages because I'm in a light-controlled environment where I won't mind the brightness lost so much and it just isn't available still.
15:13 IMO the Kega Fusion composite is a bit *too* blurry, should be a middle option that has ~213 horizontal lines and another that doesn't completely blur the image so you can still see dithering but it's less obvious.
The last of the CRT TVs, partiicularly HD CRTs did have lag due to said digital processing unless you were at 1080i.
Also I do have a VGA CRT I like to use, an Apple Multiple Scan 20 and 17. Both are great and the 17 is 70khz while the 20 is 81khz. I typically use it at 1600x1200@60hz
I think this vid and your channel are destined to blow up. This video is excellent!
And you forgot to mention damage to eyes crt flickering does. I'd gained 4 diopters thanks to crt and it stopped progressing the day I replaced it with lcd.
Yes this is true. I would also say that moderation in all things is important. This is why I won't use a CRT when working or even just watching a TV show. But using a CRT whilst avoiding my LCD when playing certain fast paced video games has actually helped with my astigmatism, to the point where I no longer need to wear my glasses anymore.
Apparently, it has something to do with the brain infighting with the eyes because the brain is following a moving object that is out of focus (because motion blur), and it thinks that the eyes are not focusing properly. So, it over compensates, causing eye strain and headaches.
The infighting has stopped now that fast moving objects no longer are blurry.
Basically, and I'm obviously really only preaching to the choir here, all we can do is to try to understand what our bodies need. Avoid CRTs if you have a potential condition that is worsened because of it. But in my case, it's a balancing act.
huh, that is weird there is eye damage with CRT's. Maybe that's why our parents always told us not to see too close to the TV back in the days of the 90's with CRT's. I never needed glasses growing up until this year, which is now age 38, due to one eye being out of focus SLIGHTLY, and it causing headaches over time sometimes. I have managed to get ahold of 3 old CRT's like a Sony Trinitron, and I have always assumed I get headaches staring at LCD monitors because of the brightness and blue light and stuff, while I never got headaches staring at CRT's all day while growing up. Something about the screen or more natural glow was just totally fine with me, and after 15 years of LCD screens I need glasses finally to stop headaches (though not to see well, I can still see with 20/16 or 20/20 vision).
I never considered the flickering a CRT does to be bad for our eyes, but we'll see after I start using them again to play retro games.
Lcd are more damaging to the eyes because of the Backlight
@@sonyx4500 what universe are you from?
@@MantasMackeviciusspf I never had Problems with my eyes. Until the switch to LCD happened.
I agree with everything but refresh rate with low fps. There is actually no connection between both. There is definitely a big noticeble difference between 60hz and 144hz at locked 30fps in game. So the main rule for the refresh rate - higher is always better, despite the fps.
After about 20 years fast OLEDs are finally coming, so people would be able to see and feel how it was on CRTs back in the days in case of motion blur.
My fav preferences were 800x600x120hz in the beginning of 2000s.
I use high-refresh rate displays, and it feels nothing like a CRT. That's how I know you haven't used a CRT before, or at least recently.
@@GTXDash today we pay good money for the best monitors for competitive gaming, like Beng XL2566K TN 360hz when imo a crt with 120hz was way cheaper and the feeling... buttery smooth
What a great video thanks for the cool information
I use my crt at 132 hz with a 1022 by 600 resolution. I use amds virtual super resolution to have it show up as 1080p or 4k in windows
I have ordered hardware scaler for similar effect
@@OCTAGRAM I'm just using an HDMI to vga adaptor, resolution scaled in software. Hardware scaler sounds interesting though
@@joman104 Are you able to get authentic 640x480 via HDMI-to-VGA? I get blurred upscaled high-resolution image. I am yet to understand what forces upscale. My best guess was that HDMI is just not supporting low resolutions, so videocard upscales image via HDMI, and I get no scanlines
@@OCTAGRAM are you using custom resolution utility (cru)
@@joman104 Windows 10 can set up resolution as low as 800x600 (blurred). nVidia can setup 640x480. It is also blurred. And programs just don't work right anyway. I have much better output with Kramer VP-724XL. I downscale 1280x960 to 640x480, and it is awesome.
Also, this particular hardware can correct color, which is essential for old fading CRT. Don't know how much use of it, though. Hardware downscaler is supposed to be connected to modern devices which have color correction anyway. A harder quest is with authentic DOS hardware, but then I would prefer not to scale anything, and for that matters I would connect DOS directly to CRT, but then I cannot tune up drastically faded colors
bro its same on shooters. On 240hz all the enemy peeks feels so fast. And when u push the game on lower hz u cant react better its weird lol new tech is all bs
12:31 then you didn't unplug and discharge it, it's like using anything else, be stupid and you will get hurt.
Weight is pretty irrelevant considering it's a stationary object.
They are still a useful technology and it would be interesting to see what modern materials and manufacturing could do with it.
I use 21 inch crt monitor with 140khz...this monitor with 85Hz is faster than my gaming oled monitor with 144hz and g sync on.
we need brand new 24 inch CRT monitors and consumer TVs, bigger than 24 is not economic to manufacture. I hope one of the TV manufacturers finally sees the market for this kind of product and start producing them. I recently ran DOOM in PCem which emulated old 1980s and 1990s PCs, and it looks horrible on my display that's why I will definitely buy a CRT.
10:50 Brazil doesn't use PAL but rather PAL-M, which is basically 30i but with different colors. All the TVs I owned supported both NTSC and PAL-M.
Yeah, our TVs can do both 50i and 60i. I did not know there was a version of PAL that could only do 60i (30 full fields). Interesting.
I can see easily 60Hz flicker on an LED light but not an incandescent.
i have a dell p1130 crt monitor
does anyone here know what the ideal nvidia settings would be on a crt monitor like this?
for example
anisotropic filtering, do i max it out?
antialising setting do i max it out, is there any other antialising option i should activate like fxaa or transparency?
texture filtering negative lod bias clamp or allow?
texture filtering trilinear optimization on or off?
should v sync and triple buffering be turned on or off?
my resolution of choice is 1280x1024 at 118hz cause that's the max it can go at this resolution
118hz at 1024p is extremely good. You've got an amazing CRT
This is how I set mine up (this applies to all types of displays)
Anisitropic: 16x
FXAA: On (games that offer better AA will disable this automatically)
Transparency: Off (more modern AA like TAA or even FXAA does a better job anyways)
Lod bias: Either, mine is on Allow
Trilinear optimization: On (turn off if you're not using Anisitropic filtering)
Triple buffer: On (off if vsync is also off)
Vsyn: Adaptive (On if you prefer absolutely no screen tearing at lower fps)
@@GTXDash thanks for the reply
really good video btw
and antialiasing setting do i max it out? my old laptop can go at max 32x CSAA which i have right on right now
@sebmeister67 If your pc can handle it. I find 4x or 8x to be sufficient, and performance is greatly improved over 16x or 32x
Wow, you are a luck sob mate, one of the best, modern games look stunning on that monitor, at 1920x1440p72Hz or 1728x1296p96Hz (depending on what you prefer, higher FPS or slightly higher resolution), you can also do 1440x1080p120Hz, as far as AA/AF and all that, set it too "let application decide" and go by a game by game basis for what you like best, but do set the global settings to best image quality, turn of any whole screen antialiasing blurring effects like temporal AA that lower image fidelity that CRTs do not need. Oh and I highly recommend using DSR superscaling if your GPU can handle it, CRTs l, especially a really fine dot-pitch one like yours love superscaling, even just 2 times 1440p will look jaw dropping.
Extremely underrated channel.
165hz feels just perfect
When I switched from CRT to LCD back in the day the lack of flicker on the LCD was the main benefit. Even at 120hz a CRT flickers more than LCD at 60hz. You claim 48hz is enough not to see flicker but 50hz TVs that we have here flicker a lot to me. Playing at 60 in games that support PAL60 helps but it doesn’t get rid of flicker. So flicker or motion blur? Best would be to have neither. When I game on a CRT monitor I prefer 85hz minimum for my eyes not to hurt.
Yes, you have to use Virtual DVD-ROM/CD/Utility
CRTs are gone for ever so we have to take good care of the ones left. I think the only downside of VGA CRTs is they tend to cause eye strain, I'm not sure why though. I use 15KHz CRTs for all my analog consoles from PS2 and GC backwards, these games look their best on a 15KHz CRT and I don't suffer any kind of eye strain nor any inconvenience, but when I use the 31KHz VGA CRTs for modern games (even at 85Hz) my eyes feel tired and I feel I have to rest... maybe it's the finer scanline requiring more light or something else. CRTs are a must for sidescrolling games, OLED could be good but has to get brighter for the "BFI Rolling Scan" to really work, my OLED BX motion looks acceptable with this BFI at 60Hz but luminance gets so low that it's hard to see, dark tones get crushed and it's not a great experience overall, that function was removed since newer OLEDs like C3 doesn't have a real rolling scan just a BFI very useless so yeah... CRTs are still a need for video games
Absolutely. I hope manufacturers find a solution to real, super fast strobing or BFI so that modern gamers can see what we've been missing in our games for 2 decades.
You know I have a question. Has Anyone tried to emulate the Cathode drawing on High Refresh rate modern monitors? The limitation re implemented as a feature? It definitely can be mathed out now.
There's products and equipment that does that like the RetroTINK 4K. But it's expensive. Ironically, using the real thing is just simply cheaper.
@@GTXDash not what I meant. I am talking about the literal raster of the Tube not shadow masks or up scalers/Line doublers. IE on the 300+hz displays you would get a partial frame that is X pixels tall with a fading frame of the last one emulating the frame retention rather than the black insertion frames.
Basically it using the absurd refreshrate to regain the old limitation of the raster the cathode tube did line by line. Giving even new displays the rolling shutter effect.
More of a trickery for pure digital signals instead. I don't see anything like that anywhere. By all means new graphics cards should be able to do this imitation.
@@snintendog I don't think that would reduce the motion blur compared to BFI.
The BVM-X300/V2 uses a very effective 60Hz rolling-scan BFI algorithm, and so do a few other PVM's & BVM's, Dolby's 4200 Pulsar reference monitor has pretty amazing CRT emulation, but still falls very short of a CRT's motion IQ & performance, the best we have ever seen is what Pioneers Kuro engineers managed to cook up, that is Subfield-Drive, this produces almost the same motion performance as a CRT @ 65-70Hz, with incredible IQ.
@@Wobble2007 Bingo so it has been tried.. also is the Subfield-Drive only on LCDs? I can only find Demos of it on old tech promos. This is exactly what i was asking about.
I really wish I had my custom pc and a crt monitor to try fortnite out... I already found the animation cancel to be as effective as it was in gunz the duel... wow.. that game was the biggest hacker playground for my youth.
what monitors would u recommend, and how to find them in eu (netherlands)
If money is not an issue, the usual places like ebay may give you what you want. If you want something Less than €80, then local shopping is better. Go to e-waste facilities, go to a thrift store or pawn shop, and check up on some local stuff on facebook marketplace, or ask your grandma if she still has her old computer in storage or something.
The condition is the most important part. There really aren't a lot of really "bad" CRT brands. Age is more of an issue, so get something from the 2000s. There are some really good 90s monitors from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and Viewsonic. but stuff from the 2000s will give you better options and will allow you to expand to display manufacturers that got better such as LG, Philips, Dell, and many more. Sometimes you can get black monitors that are not as much of an eyesore from the 2000s.
If you find a monitor that's within your budget, just do a quick search on the model to see what resolutions its supports. I wouldn't go bellow 1280x1024, because if a monitor can go that high then it means it's decently capable in terms of refreshrate and clarity.
I never stopped using them
12:30 im sure the people that repaired those things where smart enough to wear thick rubber gloves so they dont get the shit blasted out of them