>CRTs are low res
Many mid/high-end CRTs are capable of very high resolutions, even for today's standards, such as 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 and even 2880x2160 (4:3 4K)
>CRTs dont have good colors
Although not capable of extended gamuts like AdobeRGB, majority of content still uses sRGB as a standard and CRTs cover it completely
ninedegreesbelow.com
>Modern displays have better motion blur
They may have higher refresh rates but due to sample and hold they still look comparatively blurry in motion compared to a CRT at 60hz. Strobed solutions still have their issues such as crosstalking and artifacts.
youtube.com
>They are only good for retro
Modern games benefit as well from a CRT display due to greater response times, refresh rates, and contrast improving the overall experience. Lower resolutions can also take off the burden on the GPU and enable better FPS.
>Only look good in pitch black rooms
Unless the Sun is blasting directly onto the screen, antiglare/reflexive coatings do a tremendous job at improving visibility under lighting conditions, and simple curtains or shutters are often enough for ideal viewing conditions.
>CRTs are blurry
Only when the resolution exceeds the tube's dot/stripe pitch and that's ONLY relevant for text work, using a lower resolution can produce very sharp text.
>They emit radiation
As much as eating 10 bananas.
xkcd.com
Clearing common CRT misconceptions
>>CRTs are low res
True. Resolution includes temporal resolution as well as spatial resolution. It is best defined by pixel rate, and no CRT is anywhere close to a modern gaming LCD. Your "2880x2160" will be disgusting 30fps interlaced shit at best.
>They are only good for retro
True. Strobing fixes motion blur, but it also causes phantom array effect. The correct option is increasing frame rate. Retro content does not give you this option, so a CRT is genuinely the least bad option here.
>CRTs are blurry
True. No matter how expensive the CRT, no matter how carefully you adjust the settings, and no matter how long you leave it to warm up, it will always show a blurrier image than the cheapest TFT LCD.
Interesting blogpost crt-shill user, how do I unsubscribe?
>interlaced
Mine does 2048x1536 progressive so.
>using a lower resolution can produce very sharp text.
Only if you're content with displaying modern applications in 640x480, but yes, the blur is only an issue for text, and not a problem at all if you don't consider text to be an important part of using computers.
Even if it somehow manages 60Hz, that's less than 2/3rds the pixel rate of the cheapest 1080p144 gaming LCD.
what do you guys mean by blurry text???
Your LCD does not have "temporal resolution", lmao.
LCDs have phantom array effect as well. It is by no means exclusive to strobing and masking it with motion blur is not a solution.
Slight blur is fine as it only reduces the percieved definition, working within the limits of phosphor pitch a tube can define exactly as much as an equal resolution LCD.
Your claims about pixel clock are misleading as LCDs cannot multisync.
you'd need a fucking powerlifter to get that out of there now.
>Even if it somehow manages 60Hz,
best tubes did that res at 85hz
the highest end trinitrons were very close to doing real 4k. they basically just needed to be wider or have a finer grille pitch. 2160 pixel height at 60hz was very achievable, and that's incredibly impressive by itself for pre-2005 technology.
The text you're reading right now is nowhere near as sharp on a CRT as it is on a modern LCD display.
I recognise the merits of CRT displays but I'm never going to use one for daily tasks.
>Your LCD does not have "temporal resolution",
In all modern LCDs it's the same as refresh rate.
>LCDs have phantom array effect as well
Far less annoying, because unlike CRT phantom array effect, it does not react to eye movement.
>Slight blur is fine as it only reduces the percieved definition
This is not fine. I disable text antialiasing to fully benefit from LCD sharpness.
>LCDs cannot multisync
It's not 1990 anymore, boomer.
>Many mid/high-end CRTs are capable of very high resolutions, even for today's standards, such as 1920x1440 and 2048x1536 and even 2880x2160 (4:3 4K)
That's just the luminance resolution right?
Aren't the colored phosphors much bigger, limiting color resolution?
Meanwhile, modern LCDs do 4Kp144, so more than 4 times the pixel rate.
>In all modern LCDs it's the same as refresh rate.
Not even true due to response time issues. The fastest ones can only handle ~120Hz, and there are only a handful of monitors which strobe correctly.
>It's not 1990 anymore, boomer.
Yes, they couldn't multisync then and they couldn't multisync now. There is one monitor which can manage it and it only does so by coping with line doubling.
18 years of technical development will do that. Too bad the panels themselves barely improved, even as retards normalized edge lit displays and matte coatings to make such number embiggening cheap.
no, color tubes don't work like that, they don't have white phosphors.
all of them will render full range 4:4:4 rgb (because of course, it's just a digital signal converted to analog)
Why is this stupid meme being forced?
Temporal multisync is still multisync.
You gain no resolution advantage whatsoever, so it's pointless outside of removing telecinic judder, and there are other ways of dealing with that.
Non-integer scaling is laughably shit on an LCD.
And no, bandwidth isn't an excuse either, use proper cables faggot.
Temporal resolution is still resolution. 60Hz looks like shit regardless of whether it's high or low persistence. Pixel rate is the fairest way to compare resolution, and CRTs get BTFO by modern gaming LCDs.
Bandwidth is still misleading, you're missing quite a few nuances in panel performance.
My point is they have color phosphors.
Let's say your LCD has 960 red, 960 green and 960 blue phosphors on each row.
This is fine for 960 pixel wide signals.
But when you feed it a 2K signal the first pixel has to go on the left sides of the first 3 phosphors, and the 2nd pixel to the right side of the same 3 phosphors.
So you get a strange interlacing of colors.
ie: instead of r1,g1,b1,r2,g2,b2 you get r1,r2,g1,g2,b1,b2
guess i dont know what sharp text is
to me right now the text on the monitor is quite sharp
>u2713hmt i just plugged and played with no adjustments made
Geometry: LCD wins
Convergence: LCD wins
Sharpness: LCD wins
Size: LCD wins
Power consumption: LCD wins
Gamut: LCD wins
Warmup time: LCD wins
Phantom array effect: LCD wins
Sample-and-hold blur: CRT wins
Latency: CRT wins
Viewing angle: CRT wins
Contrast: CRT wins
So, basically, if you're playing retro games, CRT is the best choice, otherwise you should use an LCD.
In practice that functions more like a kind of super sampling.
Most tubes will have just about enough dots to resolve whatever their recommended resolution is perfectly, though. 2048x1536 is not a lie on the highest end.
>CRTs are blurry
just adjust the focus pot, its on the flyback, but you can only have so much of an improvement due to dot pitch
Close but no cigar.
Gamuts wider than sRGB aren't very useful to most people.
Warmup time is about the same between the two, LCDs need a second to turn on the backlight and CRTs get brighter.
Phantom array effect is an issue on both.
Latency is faster on a tube for a given refresh rate, but LCD wins at the higher refresh rates they are available with.
Contrast is difficult to answer as it's variable on a tube depending on the content of the image. They certainly win for dynamic range/black levels though, at least against anything short of a very good FALD.
No matter how you adjust it, it will always be inferior to the cheapest TFT LCD. Electron beams are inherently unfocused because the individual electrons repel each other.
CRTs take at least 10 minutes to reach thermal equilibrium after power on, and until then the geometry is unstable. Phantom array effect is a far more serious problem on low persistence displays, and all CRTs are low persistence.
>2048x1536 is not a lie
But the claim was 2880x2160
Which I interpret as "supersampling" an LCD with a lower recommended resolution, or alternatively chroma subsampling "4K" on a screen that cannot display true 4K.
>CRTs take at least 10 minutes to reach thermal equilibrium after power on, and until then the geometry is unstable.
Werx on my machine. Geometry will never be perfect.
There is no way to get rid of phantom array effect without (currently) unrealistic refresh rates.